Pub Date : 2024-05-20DOI: 10.1177/20319525241251439
Silvio Sonnati
This contribution examines the inadmissibility of a preliminary reference order submitted by the Court of Padua, Italy to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The case involved the suspension of a worker, who, while legally obliged, declined to have the Covid-19 vaccine. The Italian court temporarily halted proceedings initiated by the worker's appeal. The author provides a comprehensive analysis facts of the case, the applicable national legislation, and the content of the preliminary reference order. The order scrutinised the compatibility of the conditional authorisation issued by the European Commission for the release of vaccines in circulation at that time. Additionally, it explored potential discrimination against workers who, by refusing vaccination, faced suspension from work without pay, as per explicit legal provisions. The contribution concludes by addressing the specific details of the inadmissibility ruling from the CJEU. Case: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 July 2023. D. M. v Azienda Ospedale-Università di Padova. Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Padova. Reference for a preliminary ruling – Public health – National legislation imposing a vaccination obligation on health professionals – Suspension from duty without pay for personnel refusing the vaccine – Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 – Medicinal products for human use – Vaccines against Covid-19 – Regulation (EC) No 507/2006 – Validity of conditional marketing authorisations – Regulation (EU) 2021/953 – Prohibition of discrimination between vaccinated and unvaccinated persons – Inadmissibility.
{"title":"Unvaccinated employees during Covid-19 emergency: Debating the Italian labour court referral","authors":"Silvio Sonnati","doi":"10.1177/20319525241251439","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525241251439","url":null,"abstract":"This contribution examines the inadmissibility of a preliminary reference order submitted by the Court of Padua, Italy to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The case involved the suspension of a worker, who, while legally obliged, declined to have the Covid-19 vaccine. The Italian court temporarily halted proceedings initiated by the worker's appeal. The author provides a comprehensive analysis facts of the case, the applicable national legislation, and the content of the preliminary reference order. The order scrutinised the compatibility of the conditional authorisation issued by the European Commission for the release of vaccines in circulation at that time. Additionally, it explored potential discrimination against workers who, by refusing vaccination, faced suspension from work without pay, as per explicit legal provisions. The contribution concludes by addressing the specific details of the inadmissibility ruling from the CJEU. Case: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 July 2023. D. M. v Azienda Ospedale-Università di Padova. Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Padova. Reference for a preliminary ruling – Public health – National legislation imposing a vaccination obligation on health professionals – Suspension from duty without pay for personnel refusing the vaccine – Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 – Medicinal products for human use – Vaccines against Covid-19 – Regulation (EC) No 507/2006 – Validity of conditional marketing authorisations – Regulation (EU) 2021/953 – Prohibition of discrimination between vaccinated and unvaccinated persons – Inadmissibility.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2024-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141121899","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 : 2024-05-20DOI: 10.1177/20319525241251436
Silvia Rainone
The Council Recommendation on strengthening social dialogue is a positive recognition of the key role of social dialogue in the EU's social market economy. At the same time, episodes of institutional disfavour of the social partners’ co-determination role and resistance to robust sectoral collective bargaining warrant a cautious assessment. This article looks at the current state of EU social dialogue, examining its primary dimensions: the involvement of social partners in policymaking and the scope of collective bargaining. It assesses the Council Recommendation, along with other measures adopted during the Von der Leyen presidency, to ascertain their collective contribution in realigning EU social dialogue with the principles of the EU Treaties. Overall, the analysis reveals a nuanced picture, with both positive and challenging aspects. While collective bargaining has been given a new (albeit partial) boost, the same cannot be said for the social partners’ participation in EU policymaking. Notably, the Council Recommendation reaffirmed the Court of Justice's decision in the EPSU case, solidifying the Commission's discretionary authority to decide on the legislative implementation of framework agreements, to the detriment of the social partners’ regulatory agency. Finally, the article proposes a blueprint for further advancing the EU's aspiration for social dialogue, seeking to reconciling it with the social objectives that, constitutionally, the Union aspires to achieve.
{"title":"EU social dialogue revitalisation: Between rhetoric, new rights, political commitments and historical caution","authors":"Silvia Rainone","doi":"10.1177/20319525241251436","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525241251436","url":null,"abstract":"The Council Recommendation on strengthening social dialogue is a positive recognition of the key role of social dialogue in the EU's social market economy. At the same time, episodes of institutional disfavour of the social partners’ co-determination role and resistance to robust sectoral collective bargaining warrant a cautious assessment. This article looks at the current state of EU social dialogue, examining its primary dimensions: the involvement of social partners in policymaking and the scope of collective bargaining. It assesses the Council Recommendation, along with other measures adopted during the Von der Leyen presidency, to ascertain their collective contribution in realigning EU social dialogue with the principles of the EU Treaties. Overall, the analysis reveals a nuanced picture, with both positive and challenging aspects. While collective bargaining has been given a new (albeit partial) boost, the same cannot be said for the social partners’ participation in EU policymaking. Notably, the Council Recommendation reaffirmed the Court of Justice's decision in the EPSU case, solidifying the Commission's discretionary authority to decide on the legislative implementation of framework agreements, to the detriment of the social partners’ regulatory agency. Finally, the article proposes a blueprint for further advancing the EU's aspiration for social dialogue, seeking to reconciling it with the social objectives that, constitutionally, the Union aspires to achieve.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2024-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141122117","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 : 2024-05-16DOI: 10.1177/20319525241242908
Christina Hiessl
{"title":"Voluntary work in Europe: Introduction to this special issue","authors":"Christina Hiessl","doi":"10.1177/20319525241242908","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525241242908","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2024-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140970594","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 : 2024-05-15DOI: 10.1177/20319525241251435
Annika Rosin
In the case of cross-border employment, the applicable law is determined mainly according to habitual place of work. If this factor cannot be clarified, the engaging place of business of the employer determines the applicable law. Both factors can be set aside if the relationship is more closely connected to some other country. Telework is performed outside the employers’ premises, and the determination of the exact workplace can be difficult. This again complicates the determination of the applicable law in cross-border cases. This article analyses how, in the case of cross-border telework, the applicable law should be determined. It is argued that the exact system depends on the type of telework. If telework is performed in one country abroad, the habitual place of work determines the applicable law. If teleworker has at least two offices or manages his own working time, the second connecting factor applies. As the determination of the applicable law according to the engaging place of business is not considered to be sufficiently employee-protective, escape clause should be emphasised in the second case to guarantee the best employment protection to the employee.
{"title":"Cross-border telework and the applicable labour law: The role of different connecting factors in determining objectively applicable law","authors":"Annika Rosin","doi":"10.1177/20319525241251435","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525241251435","url":null,"abstract":"In the case of cross-border employment, the applicable law is determined mainly according to habitual place of work. If this factor cannot be clarified, the engaging place of business of the employer determines the applicable law. Both factors can be set aside if the relationship is more closely connected to some other country. Telework is performed outside the employers’ premises, and the determination of the exact workplace can be difficult. This again complicates the determination of the applicable law in cross-border cases. This article analyses how, in the case of cross-border telework, the applicable law should be determined. It is argued that the exact system depends on the type of telework. If telework is performed in one country abroad, the habitual place of work determines the applicable law. If teleworker has at least two offices or manages his own working time, the second connecting factor applies. As the determination of the applicable law according to the engaging place of business is not considered to be sufficiently employee-protective, escape clause should be emphasised in the second case to guarantee the best employment protection to the employee.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2024-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140974930","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 : 2024-04-08DOI: 10.1177/20319525241242896
Emiliano Maran
This article provides an overview of the legislation on the status and working conditions of the different categories of non-professional magistrates, as utilised by the judiciary administration of European Member States. In this regard, a distinction is made between ‘lay judges’, non-professional judges cooperating in a judicial process on the basis of their perspective as normal citizens, and ‘honorary judges’, who cooperate in the adjudication with their specialist knowledge and experiences. Through the lens of the CJEU's ruling in UX, the article also provides an insight into whether, on the basis of the reported legislation, any particular category of honorary judges is susceptible of falling within the European concept of ‘worker’.
{"title":"The working conditions of non-professional magistrates and the European concept of ‘worker’","authors":"Emiliano Maran","doi":"10.1177/20319525241242896","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525241242896","url":null,"abstract":"This article provides an overview of the legislation on the status and working conditions of the different categories of non-professional magistrates, as utilised by the judiciary administration of European Member States. In this regard, a distinction is made between ‘lay judges’, non-professional judges cooperating in a judicial process on the basis of their perspective as normal citizens, and ‘honorary judges’, who cooperate in the adjudication with their specialist knowledge and experiences. Through the lens of the CJEU's ruling in UX, the article also provides an insight into whether, on the basis of the reported legislation, any particular category of honorary judges is susceptible of falling within the European concept of ‘worker’.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2024-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140575526","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 : 2024-04-08DOI: 10.1177/20319525241242796
Nicola Kountouris
The present article offers an analysis of some key aspects of the UK Supreme Court (SC) Deliveroo judgment. After a short description of some of the facts and findings of the case, the article argues that the Supreme Court may have actually misconstrued the personal scope of application of Article 11 ECHR and, like the other domestic jurisdictions before, misapplied the law (and the concept of ‘employment relationship’ deployed by the ECtHR) to the facts of this case. While the SC judgment did not expressly elaborate on the domestic ‘worker’ definition contained in s. 296 TULRCA 1992, the article explores the extent to which the Deliveroo saga has incorrectly construed this concept, embracing a very narrow concept of ‘personal work’ that neither the statutory wording itself nor the context in which it was applied arguably support. Finally, the concluding section of this article offers an alternative approach to the legal construction and legal regulation of ‘personal work’, one that is already emerging in other jurisdictions and that should underpin any future reform of the personal scope of application of UK, but also EU labour law - a reform, the article concludes, that is long overdue.
{"title":"Not Delivering: the UK ‘worker’ concept before the UK Supreme Court in Deliveroo - IWGB v CAC and another [2023] UKSC 43","authors":"Nicola Kountouris","doi":"10.1177/20319525241242796","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525241242796","url":null,"abstract":"The present article offers an analysis of some key aspects of the UK Supreme Court (SC) Deliveroo judgment. After a short description of some of the facts and findings of the case, the article argues that the Supreme Court may have actually misconstrued the personal scope of application of Article 11 ECHR and, like the other domestic jurisdictions before, misapplied the law (and the concept of ‘employment relationship’ deployed by the ECtHR) to the facts of this case. While the SC judgment did not expressly elaborate on the domestic ‘worker’ definition contained in s. 296 TULRCA 1992, the article explores the extent to which the Deliveroo saga has incorrectly construed this concept, embracing a very narrow concept of ‘personal work’ that neither the statutory wording itself nor the context in which it was applied arguably support. Finally, the concluding section of this article offers an alternative approach to the legal construction and legal regulation of ‘personal work’, one that is already emerging in other jurisdictions and that should underpin any future reform of the personal scope of application of UK, but also EU labour law - a reform, the article concludes, that is long overdue.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2024-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140575565","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 : 2024-04-05DOI: 10.1177/20319525241244921
Sara Huybrechts
The Matzak case, a landmark ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), challenged traditional understandings of working time and rest periods, particularly for volunteer firefighters in Belgium. Despite earlier cases before Belgian courts, the Matzak decision brought significant shifts in jurisprudence, influencing how volunteers were categorised and how stand-by time was interpreted. This article examines the impact of the Matzak judgment on Belgian case law, tracing its evolution from pre- Matzak rulings to post-decision interpretations. Analysing decisions from the Court of Cassation and the Constitutional Court, the study explores the redefinition of volunteers as employees and the qualification of stand-by time as working time. The reluctance of Belgian courts to adapt their views on stand-by duty prior to Matzak is highlighted, with persistent adherence to principles established in the Simap case. However, the Matzak ruling prompted questions about the treatment of voluntary firefighters and the adequacy of legal distinctions. Despite initial resistance, subsequent cases challenged previous interpretations, leading to clarifications by the Court of Cassation. Ambiguities remain, as seen in the Simon case, raising concerns about consistent application of Matzak jurisprudence. The unique status of voluntary firefighters in Belgium presents challenges, as they operate in a legal grey area with regards to rights and working conditions. Municipalities are urged to regulate their working time in the absence of general legislation. Nonetheless, the recognition of firefighters as workers by the CJEU offers promise for their legal standing under EU law. Increasing recognition of comparability between volunteers and professionals suggests a move towards more equitable treatment. Looking beyond Matzak, the article explores implications for the evolving digital workplace, where boundaries between work and personal time blur. The Matzak principle, which introduces objective limitations on devotion to personal and social interests, offers a framework for addressing these challenges. By considering potential applications in the digital realm, the article emphasises the importance of protecting worker well-being and rest periods, consistent with the objectives of the Working Time Directive. In conclusion, the Matzak case has had a significant impact on Belgian jurisprudence regarding the working time of volunteer firefighters and the adjudication of stand-by periods. While challenges and ambiguities persist, the ruling has spurred a reassessment of legal frameworks and encouraged greater recognition of the rights of volunteer workers. As the digital landscape continues to evolve, the Matzak principle provides a valuable tool for navigating complex issues of work-life balance and ensuring the protection of workers’ rights.
{"title":"Before, after and beyond the Matzak case: Overview of the Belgian jurisprudence","authors":"Sara Huybrechts","doi":"10.1177/20319525241244921","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525241244921","url":null,"abstract":"The Matzak case, a landmark ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), challenged traditional understandings of working time and rest periods, particularly for volunteer firefighters in Belgium. Despite earlier cases before Belgian courts, the Matzak decision brought significant shifts in jurisprudence, influencing how volunteers were categorised and how stand-by time was interpreted. This article examines the impact of the Matzak judgment on Belgian case law, tracing its evolution from pre- Matzak rulings to post-decision interpretations. Analysing decisions from the Court of Cassation and the Constitutional Court, the study explores the redefinition of volunteers as employees and the qualification of stand-by time as working time. The reluctance of Belgian courts to adapt their views on stand-by duty prior to Matzak is highlighted, with persistent adherence to principles established in the Simap case. However, the Matzak ruling prompted questions about the treatment of voluntary firefighters and the adequacy of legal distinctions. Despite initial resistance, subsequent cases challenged previous interpretations, leading to clarifications by the Court of Cassation. Ambiguities remain, as seen in the Simon case, raising concerns about consistent application of Matzak jurisprudence. The unique status of voluntary firefighters in Belgium presents challenges, as they operate in a legal grey area with regards to rights and working conditions. Municipalities are urged to regulate their working time in the absence of general legislation. Nonetheless, the recognition of firefighters as workers by the CJEU offers promise for their legal standing under EU law. Increasing recognition of comparability between volunteers and professionals suggests a move towards more equitable treatment. Looking beyond Matzak, the article explores implications for the evolving digital workplace, where boundaries between work and personal time blur. The Matzak principle, which introduces objective limitations on devotion to personal and social interests, offers a framework for addressing these challenges. By considering potential applications in the digital realm, the article emphasises the importance of protecting worker well-being and rest periods, consistent with the objectives of the Working Time Directive. In conclusion, the Matzak case has had a significant impact on Belgian jurisprudence regarding the working time of volunteer firefighters and the adjudication of stand-by periods. While challenges and ambiguities persist, the ruling has spurred a reassessment of legal frameworks and encouraged greater recognition of the rights of volunteer workers. As the digital landscape continues to evolve, the Matzak principle provides a valuable tool for navigating complex issues of work-life balance and ensuring the protection of workers’ rights.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2024-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140575413","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 : 2024-04-03DOI: 10.1177/20319525241244940
Christina Hiessl
Perspectives on social dialogue.
社会对话视角。
{"title":"Perspectives on Social Dialogue","authors":"Christina Hiessl","doi":"10.1177/20319525241244940","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525241244940","url":null,"abstract":"Perspectives on social dialogue.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2024-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140575563","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 : 2024-04-01DOI: 10.1177/20319525241243354
Martin Gruber-Risak, Sascha Obrecht
This contribution looks at the status of volunteers in EU labour law taking into account the criteria of the CJEU's Lawrie-Blum formula. It demonstrates, in light of the jurisprudence of the Court, that some criteria may be problematic and that a purposive approach may provide adequate solutions.
{"title":"Under what conditions do volunteers escape being qualified as workers?","authors":"Martin Gruber-Risak, Sascha Obrecht","doi":"10.1177/20319525241243354","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525241243354","url":null,"abstract":"This contribution looks at the status of volunteers in EU labour law taking into account the criteria of the CJEU's Lawrie-Blum formula. It demonstrates, in light of the jurisprudence of the Court, that some criteria may be problematic and that a purposive approach may provide adequate solutions.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140575439","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 : 2024-04-01DOI: 10.1177/20319525241242903
Christina Hiessl
This contribution provides a structural analysis of the case law of national courts in the EU, EEA and UK confronted with questions on the classification of volunteers. It explores the criteria and rationales used by courts to decide whether workers hired as volunteers should be reclassified as employees. These are put into perspective by reference to more recent evolutions of court approaches to employee status, particularly in the context of the platform economy. Given the societal relevance of voluntary work, a particular focus lies on the question of whether the operation of volunteer organisations might face challenges due to the tendency to broadening the concept of worker.
{"title":"The legal classification of volunteers: A cross-European case law comparison","authors":"Christina Hiessl","doi":"10.1177/20319525241242903","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525241242903","url":null,"abstract":"This contribution provides a structural analysis of the case law of national courts in the EU, EEA and UK confronted with questions on the classification of volunteers. It explores the criteria and rationales used by courts to decide whether workers hired as volunteers should be reclassified as employees. These are put into perspective by reference to more recent evolutions of court approaches to employee status, particularly in the context of the platform economy. Given the societal relevance of voluntary work, a particular focus lies on the question of whether the operation of volunteer organisations might face challenges due to the tendency to broadening the concept of worker.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140575179","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：