Pub Date : 2022-12-14DOI: 10.1177/20319525221140422
P. Tomassetti
This article investigates the contribution of pension funds in harnessing the power of finance to achieve social and environmental objectives. After reviewing and discussing the potential and main hurdles to pension fund engagement in Socially Responsible Investment (SRI), the common law approach to shareholder activism is contrasted with the EU law on pension funds and on sustainability-related disclosures and taxonomies. Unlike the US and other common law jurisdictions, where the duties regarding retirement institutions are derived from trust law, EU rules on pension funds governance and investment policies are generally grounded on the more relaxed duties of corporate and financial law. On the one hand, this makes it easier for pension funds to consider the potential impact of environmental, social and governance factors (ESG) on investment decisions. On the other, social and environmental concerns are functionalised for economic purposes, thus reducing the possibilities for a more critical and strategical use of pension funds’ financial power by activists. This also explains why, despite being often participated in by trade unions, the existing governance of pension funds in Europe tends to outsource the management of investment policies to financial operators. While this takes responsibility away from the governing boards of pension funds in terms of their legal duties, the combination of decentralisation and the outsourcing of investment management undermines the possibility for unions to engage in shareholder activism, and to strike a balance between the position of workers as stakeholders and the position of workers as shareholders.
{"title":"Between stakeholders and shareholders: Pension funds and labour solidarity in the age of sustainability","authors":"P. Tomassetti","doi":"10.1177/20319525221140422","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525221140422","url":null,"abstract":"This article investigates the contribution of pension funds in harnessing the power of finance to achieve social and environmental objectives. After reviewing and discussing the potential and main hurdles to pension fund engagement in Socially Responsible Investment (SRI), the common law approach to shareholder activism is contrasted with the EU law on pension funds and on sustainability-related disclosures and taxonomies. Unlike the US and other common law jurisdictions, where the duties regarding retirement institutions are derived from trust law, EU rules on pension funds governance and investment policies are generally grounded on the more relaxed duties of corporate and financial law. On the one hand, this makes it easier for pension funds to consider the potential impact of environmental, social and governance factors (ESG) on investment decisions. On the other, social and environmental concerns are functionalised for economic purposes, thus reducing the possibilities for a more critical and strategical use of pension funds’ financial power by activists. This also explains why, despite being often participated in by trade unions, the existing governance of pension funds in Europe tends to outsource the management of investment policies to financial operators. While this takes responsibility away from the governing boards of pension funds in terms of their legal duties, the combination of decentralisation and the outsourcing of investment management undermines the possibility for unions to engage in shareholder activism, and to strike a balance between the position of workers as stakeholders and the position of workers as shareholders.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44850013","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-13DOI: 10.1177/20319525221131174
Iván Antonio RodríGuez Cardo, Diego Álvarez Alonso
Multiparty work relationships have been gaining relevance in practice in recent years, particularly in the field of temporary agency work, subcontracting and platform work. There are other more specific forms of multiparty work relationships with long tradition in Spain, but they have not entailed major issues for labour law. Temporary agency work and subcontracting are the most common forms of multiparty work relationships, and there are legal rules for both of them that clarify the rights and duties of the parties involved. Platform work is an emerging reality, and a new legal provision on the matter has been recently approved, but it is still lacking a complete regulatory framework, which is problematic, because even the concept of worker/employee seems to be at issue. There is an increasing focus, among academic scholars, on multiparty work relationships or, in a broader sense, on the consequences of fragmented workplaces and business networks for the rights and duties of workers and employers. However, apart from the new legal provision on platform work, no new provisions have been developed in the area in recent years. This article provides a complete overview of multiparty work relationships in Spain, identifies the flaws of the regulatory framework and makes proposals for a future regulation.
{"title":"Multiparty work relationships in Spain: Legal provisions and emerging trends","authors":"Iván Antonio RodríGuez Cardo, Diego Álvarez Alonso","doi":"10.1177/20319525221131174","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525221131174","url":null,"abstract":"Multiparty work relationships have been gaining relevance in practice in recent years, particularly in the field of temporary agency work, subcontracting and platform work. There are other more specific forms of multiparty work relationships with long tradition in Spain, but they have not entailed major issues for labour law. Temporary agency work and subcontracting are the most common forms of multiparty work relationships, and there are legal rules for both of them that clarify the rights and duties of the parties involved. Platform work is an emerging reality, and a new legal provision on the matter has been recently approved, but it is still lacking a complete regulatory framework, which is problematic, because even the concept of worker/employee seems to be at issue. There is an increasing focus, among academic scholars, on multiparty work relationships or, in a broader sense, on the consequences of fragmented workplaces and business networks for the rights and duties of workers and employers. However, apart from the new legal provision on platform work, no new provisions have been developed in the area in recent years. This article provides a complete overview of multiparty work relationships in Spain, identifies the flaws of the regulatory framework and makes proposals for a future regulation.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45407526","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-20DOI: 10.1177/20319525221131184
N. Munkholm
The article discusses selected forms of multiparty work relationships that are surfacing in Denmark, and the responses of the social partners to these developments. The overall approach of the Danish labour market parties and legislators is with a view to ensuring that work performed by workers in atypical employment relationships, such as multiparty work relationships, are also covered by collective agreements, which can be enforced. Collective agreements must be effective and adhered to, and attempts to circumvent collective agreements are strictly prohibited. As such, multiparty work relationships are addressed as any other work relationships, and are often expressly included in normal collective agreements. This is the case, unless a setup is viewed as an attempt to circumvent a collective agreement by creating pro forma contracts. In particular, subcontracting by independent contractors has been the subject of legal review, where the trade unions have filed claims before the industrial courts to test the reality of subcontracting arrangements. Also, the question of who is the responsible employer surfaces in multiparty work relationships in particular, as the responsible employer is subject to the duty of adhering to the collective agreement and other workers’ rights. The duty to adhere to provisions in collective agreements covers fraudulent contractual setups, and the user entity that in reality is the employer can be liable for breach of the agreement. Furthermore, the social partners enter into negotiations in respect of new forms of work, adapting collective agreements to such new forms of work. This is the case for platform work. Finally, certain trade unions engage with the interests of their members in becoming independent contractors, and have developed support for their members’ endevaours by way of a formal service bureau to look after the administrative side of being an indepdent contractor. The role of the social partners continues to be central and necessary to counteract circumvention and fraudulent business structures. At the same time, the role of the social partners is also characterised as adaptive and dynamic as they seek to actively engage with the interests of their memberes, and to continue to be a relevant partner for their members as well as for society at large.
{"title":"Multiparty work relationships in Denmark: The active role of social partners","authors":"N. Munkholm","doi":"10.1177/20319525221131184","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525221131184","url":null,"abstract":"The article discusses selected forms of multiparty work relationships that are surfacing in Denmark, and the responses of the social partners to these developments. The overall approach of the Danish labour market parties and legislators is with a view to ensuring that work performed by workers in atypical employment relationships, such as multiparty work relationships, are also covered by collective agreements, which can be enforced. Collective agreements must be effective and adhered to, and attempts to circumvent collective agreements are strictly prohibited. As such, multiparty work relationships are addressed as any other work relationships, and are often expressly included in normal collective agreements. This is the case, unless a setup is viewed as an attempt to circumvent a collective agreement by creating pro forma contracts. In particular, subcontracting by independent contractors has been the subject of legal review, where the trade unions have filed claims before the industrial courts to test the reality of subcontracting arrangements. Also, the question of who is the responsible employer surfaces in multiparty work relationships in particular, as the responsible employer is subject to the duty of adhering to the collective agreement and other workers’ rights. The duty to adhere to provisions in collective agreements covers fraudulent contractual setups, and the user entity that in reality is the employer can be liable for breach of the agreement. Furthermore, the social partners enter into negotiations in respect of new forms of work, adapting collective agreements to such new forms of work. This is the case for platform work. Finally, certain trade unions engage with the interests of their members in becoming independent contractors, and have developed support for their members’ endevaours by way of a formal service bureau to look after the administrative side of being an indepdent contractor. The role of the social partners continues to be central and necessary to counteract circumvention and fraudulent business structures. At the same time, the role of the social partners is also characterised as adaptive and dynamic as they seek to actively engage with the interests of their memberes, and to continue to be a relevant partner for their members as well as for society at large.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43584056","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-20DOI: 10.1177/20319525221114474
Aude Cefaliello, M. Kullmann
In April 2021, the European Commission published its first draft of the Proposal for a Regulation on Artificial Intelligence. Since AI in the work context has increasingly become important in organising work and managing workers, the AI Act will undoubtedly have an impact on EU and national labour law systems. One aim of the proposal is to guarantee ‘consistency with existing Union legislation applicable to sectors where high-risk Artificial Intelligence systems are already used or likely to be used in the near future’, which includes the EU social acquis. It could be argued that ensuring true consistency with EU law means guaranteeing that the way the AI Act will be implemented and applied will still allow the other pieces of EU labour law to fulfil their purpose. It is undeniable that the implementation of the AI Act will overlap with various fields of EU law, especially considering the increasing use of AI technology at work. Thus, this article seeks to identify ways to refine the AI Act, insofar as it impacts work. The contribution discusses the current AI Act as proposed in April 2021, thereby focusing on two particular areas, EU non-discrimination law and EU law on occupational health and safety (OSH), as these two areas are, more or less explicitly, addressed as legal fields in the AI Act. The article starts with taking the perspective of EU labour law influencing the development of AI systems used in the employment context. We argue that providers should respect EU labour law throughout the development of the AI system (section 2). Then, the areas where EU labour law and the AI overlap are identified, thereby viewing it from an employer's perspective, i.e., the user of the AI system (section 3). Using two specific EU labour law areas (the right not to be discriminated against and the right to healthy and safe working conditions) the article provides a first assessment of how the AI Act might influence work and the regulation thereof (section 4). Finally, the conclusion critically explores whether and to what extent AI in employment situations warrants particular attention (section 5).
{"title":"Offering false security: How the draft artificial intelligence act undermines fundamental workers rights","authors":"Aude Cefaliello, M. Kullmann","doi":"10.1177/20319525221114474","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525221114474","url":null,"abstract":"In April 2021, the European Commission published its first draft of the Proposal for a Regulation on Artificial Intelligence. Since AI in the work context has increasingly become important in organising work and managing workers, the AI Act will undoubtedly have an impact on EU and national labour law systems. One aim of the proposal is to guarantee ‘consistency with existing Union legislation applicable to sectors where high-risk Artificial Intelligence systems are already used or likely to be used in the near future’, which includes the EU social acquis. It could be argued that ensuring true consistency with EU law means guaranteeing that the way the AI Act will be implemented and applied will still allow the other pieces of EU labour law to fulfil their purpose. It is undeniable that the implementation of the AI Act will overlap with various fields of EU law, especially considering the increasing use of AI technology at work. Thus, this article seeks to identify ways to refine the AI Act, insofar as it impacts work. The contribution discusses the current AI Act as proposed in April 2021, thereby focusing on two particular areas, EU non-discrimination law and EU law on occupational health and safety (OSH), as these two areas are, more or less explicitly, addressed as legal fields in the AI Act. The article starts with taking the perspective of EU labour law influencing the development of AI systems used in the employment context. We argue that providers should respect EU labour law throughout the development of the AI system (section 2). Then, the areas where EU labour law and the AI overlap are identified, thereby viewing it from an employer's perspective, i.e., the user of the AI system (section 3). Using two specific EU labour law areas (the right not to be discriminated against and the right to healthy and safe working conditions) the article provides a first assessment of how the AI Act might influence work and the regulation thereof (section 4). Finally, the conclusion critically explores whether and to what extent AI in employment situations warrants particular attention (section 5).","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43806737","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-18DOI: 10.1177/20319525221129112
Auriane Lamine
This article concludes the recent special issue of the ELLJ devoted to zero-hours contracts (ZHC), edited by E. Dermine and A. Mechelynck. It draws some cross-cutting conclusions based on the analysis of the four national contributions. Two major issues are examined in turn. First, the author looks back at the contrasting attitude that different national authorities have taken towards the use of ZHCs. She describes how these practices have been differently defined and legally framed and identifies the main debated issues. After acknowledging that no legal system has completely banned ZHCs, the article asks whether specific mechanisms adopted to mitigate the negative consequences of ZHCs are effective. This second inquiry is framed within a normative framework inspired by the work of Maslow. It invites us to refocus the legal debate on the fundamental objective of meeting the most basic needs of ZHC workers.
{"title":"What if the purpose of social law was to ensure that workers’ needs are met? Some lessons from the regulation of zero-hour contracts in three European countries","authors":"Auriane Lamine","doi":"10.1177/20319525221129112","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525221129112","url":null,"abstract":"This article concludes the recent special issue of the ELLJ devoted to zero-hours contracts (ZHC), edited by E. Dermine and A. Mechelynck. It draws some cross-cutting conclusions based on the analysis of the four national contributions. Two major issues are examined in turn. First, the author looks back at the contrasting attitude that different national authorities have taken towards the use of ZHCs. She describes how these practices have been differently defined and legally framed and identifies the main debated issues. After acknowledging that no legal system has completely banned ZHCs, the article asks whether specific mechanisms adopted to mitigate the negative consequences of ZHCs are effective. This second inquiry is framed within a normative framework inspired by the work of Maslow. It invites us to refocus the legal debate on the fundamental objective of meeting the most basic needs of ZHC workers.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45490111","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-17DOI: 10.1177/20319525221127715
Frederic De Wispelaere, Marco Rocca
Drawing on research conducted by the authors in the frame of the POSTING.STAT research project, this article explores the legal fiction that posted workers do not, at any time, ‘gain access’ to the labour market of a host State where they are in fact (temporarily) working. Hence, it analyses following question: at what point and under which circumstances are posted workers considered as working in a given Member State? To do so, it considers the use of the concept of ‘labour market’ across the case law of the Court of Justice concerning posting workers, to identify the constitutive elements of the implicit definition adopted by the Court. This analysis is compared with economic/statistical assumptions applied when measuring employment in a country. From a statistical point of view, the labour market appears to be demarcated by the place of establishment of the employer, thus excluding work (i.e., services) carried out through non-established employers. Consequently, cross-border labour mobility through the freedom to provide services does not fall within these boundaries and means that posted workers are counted in the employment statistics of their Member State of origin. The approach to posted workers in the labour market of the host State is therefore not only a legal, but also a statistical/economic, fiction. Based on an empirical reality that shows a strong concentration of posted workers in certain sectors, Member States or regions, we argue that courts and legislators, and also national statistical offices, should reconsider this approach.
{"title":"Posting of workers and the border of the labour market","authors":"Frederic De Wispelaere, Marco Rocca","doi":"10.1177/20319525221127715","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525221127715","url":null,"abstract":"Drawing on research conducted by the authors in the frame of the POSTING.STAT research project, this article explores the legal fiction that posted workers do not, at any time, ‘gain access’ to the labour market of a host State where they are in fact (temporarily) working. Hence, it analyses following question: at what point and under which circumstances are posted workers considered as working in a given Member State? To do so, it considers the use of the concept of ‘labour market’ across the case law of the Court of Justice concerning posting workers, to identify the constitutive elements of the implicit definition adopted by the Court. This analysis is compared with economic/statistical assumptions applied when measuring employment in a country. From a statistical point of view, the labour market appears to be demarcated by the place of establishment of the employer, thus excluding work (i.e., services) carried out through non-established employers. Consequently, cross-border labour mobility through the freedom to provide services does not fall within these boundaries and means that posted workers are counted in the employment statistics of their Member State of origin. The approach to posted workers in the labour market of the host State is therefore not only a legal, but also a statistical/economic, fiction. Based on an empirical reality that shows a strong concentration of posted workers in certain sectors, Member States or regions, we argue that courts and legislators, and also national statistical offices, should reconsider this approach.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44686613","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-13DOI: 10.1177/20319525221131161
Christina Hiessl
and present a categorisation of multiparty work relationships. Beyond the various constructions amounting to a ‘ hiring-out ’ of workers to a user and those in which workers are used to provide a service to a third party, the authors identify a number of other situations in which workers depend, in one or other signi fi cant way, on more than one party. The contribution provides an overview and analysis of national-level regulation and case law with regard to temporary agency work, the outsourcing of labour or of services, umbrella organisations, platform work, payrolling, franchising, workers ’ co-operations, groups of companies and co-employment.
{"title":"Multiparty work relationships in Europe: Introduction to this Special Section","authors":"Christina Hiessl","doi":"10.1177/20319525221131161","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525221131161","url":null,"abstract":"and present a categorisation of multiparty work relationships. Beyond the various constructions amounting to a ‘ hiring-out ’ of workers to a user and those in which workers are used to provide a service to a third party, the authors identify a number of other situations in which workers depend, in one or other signi fi cant way, on more than one party. The contribution provides an overview and analysis of national-level regulation and case law with regard to temporary agency work, the outsourcing of labour or of services, umbrella organisations, platform work, payrolling, franchising, workers ’ co-operations, groups of companies and co-employment.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44472349","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-13DOI: 10.1177/20319525221131173
Emiliano Maran, Elisa Chieregato
This article aims to contribute to the growing labour law discussion on Multiparty Work Relationships (MWRs), a term used to refer to temporary agency work, subcontracting, franchising and all other working arrangements in which the traditional bipartite structure is complicated by the presence of one or more intermediaries. Based on a large-scale comparative study which involved the participation of national experts from 30 European countries, the article seeks to shed light on MWRs across Europe, developing a tripartite classification of the various types of MWRs that can be found across Europe. On the basis of this classification, it provides a comparative overview of the extent to which these relationships are regulated and captured by national and EU labour law, presenting some specific domestic reactions to the problems emerging from the proliferation of these contractual arrangements.
{"title":"Multiparty work relationships across Europe: A comparative overview","authors":"Emiliano Maran, Elisa Chieregato","doi":"10.1177/20319525221131173","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525221131173","url":null,"abstract":"This article aims to contribute to the growing labour law discussion on Multiparty Work Relationships (MWRs), a term used to refer to temporary agency work, subcontracting, franchising and all other working arrangements in which the traditional bipartite structure is complicated by the presence of one or more intermediaries. Based on a large-scale comparative study which involved the participation of national experts from 30 European countries, the article seeks to shed light on MWRs across Europe, developing a tripartite classification of the various types of MWRs that can be found across Europe. On the basis of this classification, it provides a comparative overview of the extent to which these relationships are regulated and captured by national and EU labour law, presenting some specific domestic reactions to the problems emerging from the proliferation of these contractual arrangements.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44048933","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-05DOI: 10.1177/20319525221128887
Annika Rosin
The employment status of platform workers has been vividly discussed in recent years. Digital platforms often argue that the workers’ freedom to decide whether and when to work speaks to their self-employment. The scarce case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) as well as the new proposal for a Directive on platform work appears to indicate that opinion is shared. However, the Member States can guarantee better protection to platform workers. The working arrangements of platform workers are similar to zero-hours work in which the worker also has the right to refuse offered tasks. In some countries, such as Finland, zero-hours workers are explicitly considered as employees. Nevertheless, the general definition of the employment contract requires the commitment on behalf of the employee to perform work. This contradiction makes the employment status of zero-hours workers as well as platform workers unclear. In this article I analyse whether and how the right to decide whether and when to work affects the employment status of food delivery couriers working through digital platforms. I use Wolt and Foodora as examples. The issue is analysed in the light of Finnish regulation and European Union law. I argue that even though the case law of the CJEU and the proposal for a Directive on platform work regard the right of a food delivery courier to decide whether and when to work as evidence against their employee status, the couriers can obtain this status through the regulation of zero-hours contracts. Regardless of the fact that generally the conclusion of an employment contract requires the commitment on behalf of the worker to perform work, zero-hours workers are explicitly and exceptionally exempted from this requirement. As the couriers can be classified as zero-hours workers, their freedom to choose whether and when to work does not preclude their classification as employees.
{"title":"The right of a platform worker to decide whether and when to work: An obstacle to their employee status?","authors":"Annika Rosin","doi":"10.1177/20319525221128887","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525221128887","url":null,"abstract":"The employment status of platform workers has been vividly discussed in recent years. Digital platforms often argue that the workers’ freedom to decide whether and when to work speaks to their self-employment. The scarce case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) as well as the new proposal for a Directive on platform work appears to indicate that opinion is shared. However, the Member States can guarantee better protection to platform workers. The working arrangements of platform workers are similar to zero-hours work in which the worker also has the right to refuse offered tasks. In some countries, such as Finland, zero-hours workers are explicitly considered as employees. Nevertheless, the general definition of the employment contract requires the commitment on behalf of the employee to perform work. This contradiction makes the employment status of zero-hours workers as well as platform workers unclear. In this article I analyse whether and how the right to decide whether and when to work affects the employment status of food delivery couriers working through digital platforms. I use Wolt and Foodora as examples. The issue is analysed in the light of Finnish regulation and European Union law. I argue that even though the case law of the CJEU and the proposal for a Directive on platform work regard the right of a food delivery courier to decide whether and when to work as evidence against their employee status, the couriers can obtain this status through the regulation of zero-hours contracts. Regardless of the fact that generally the conclusion of an employment contract requires the commitment on behalf of the worker to perform work, zero-hours workers are explicitly and exceptionally exempted from this requirement. As the couriers can be classified as zero-hours workers, their freedom to choose whether and when to work does not preclude their classification as employees.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43222210","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-19DOI: 10.1177/20319525221127716
Elena Gramano
The contribution analyses the content and relevance of the Court of Justice of the European Union's judgment in the Dublin City Council case, and discusses its meaning and impact on the EU notion of working time.
本文分析了欧盟法院在都柏林市议会案中判决的内容和相关性，并讨论了其对欧盟工作时间概念的意义和影响。
{"title":"Stand-by time through the Court of Justice's lens","authors":"Elena Gramano","doi":"10.1177/20319525221127716","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525221127716","url":null,"abstract":"The contribution analyses the content and relevance of the Court of Justice of the European Union's judgment in the Dublin City Council case, and discusses its meaning and impact on the EU notion of working time.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66119564","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：