Pub Date : 2024-04-01DOI: 10.1177/20319525241242897
Luca Ratti
The demarcation of the personal scope of application of EU labour law results from the interplay between national legislation and the CJEU case law. This article analyses the particular case of socially useful workers in the Italian legal system and questions its compliance with EU law. It does so by exploring an intricate legal framework and the relevant interpretation by domestic and European adjudicators.
{"title":"Voluntary work in the Italian experience: the curious case of ‘socially useful workers’","authors":"Luca Ratti","doi":"10.1177/20319525241242897","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525241242897","url":null,"abstract":"The demarcation of the personal scope of application of EU labour law results from the interplay between national legislation and the CJEU case law. This article analyses the particular case of socially useful workers in the Italian legal system and questions its compliance with EU law. It does so by exploring an intricate legal framework and the relevant interpretation by domestic and European adjudicators.","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":"140575178","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 : 2024-03-28DOI: 10.1177/20319525241242794
Thomas Bangsgaard Lyngs
This article provides a doctrinal legal analysis of the ‘social conditionality’ mechanism introduced in the latest reform of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Building on that analysis, the article proceeds to assess the likelihood of social conditionality improving the conditions of agricultural workers in the EU, thereby achieving the objectives set out for it by the EU legislator. The article concludes that due to numerous issues regarding its legal architecture, including limitations in its scope, the absence of novel requirements imposed on farmers, and the rather limited dissuasive effect of its enforcement mechanism, social conditionality is unlikely to improve the conditions for agricultural workers in the EU. Therefore, it is ultimately proposed that social conditionality might more appropriately be considered as an example of ‘redwashing’ within the CAP rather than an adequate legal response to the challenges faced by agricultural workers in the EU.
本文对欧盟共同农业政策（CAP）最新改革中引入的 "社会条件 "机制进行了理论法律分析。在此分析的基础上，文章进而评估了社会条件机制改善欧盟农业工人条件的可能性，从而实现欧盟立法者为其设定的目标。文章的结论是，由于其法律架构存在诸多问题，包括范围有限、缺乏对农民的新要求，以及其执行机制的劝阻作用相当有限，社会附加条件不太可能改善欧盟农业工人的条件。因此，最终建议将社会附加条件视为 CAP 中 "再清洗 "的一个例子，而不是应对欧盟农业工人所面临挑战的适当法律对策。
{"title":"Social conditionality: An adequate legal response to challenges faced by agricultural workers in the EU, or an example of redwashing within the Common Agricultural Policy?","authors":"Thomas Bangsgaard Lyngs","doi":"10.1177/20319525241242794","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525241242794","url":null,"abstract":"This article provides a doctrinal legal analysis of the ‘social conditionality’ mechanism introduced in the latest reform of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Building on that analysis, the article proceeds to assess the likelihood of social conditionality improving the conditions of agricultural workers in the EU, thereby achieving the objectives set out for it by the EU legislator. The article concludes that due to numerous issues regarding its legal architecture, including limitations in its scope, the absence of novel requirements imposed on farmers, and the rather limited dissuasive effect of its enforcement mechanism, social conditionality is unlikely to improve the conditions for agricultural workers in the EU. Therefore, it is ultimately proposed that social conditionality might more appropriately be considered as an example of ‘redwashing’ within the CAP rather than an adequate legal response to the challenges faced by agricultural workers in the EU.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2024-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140373116","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 : 2024-03-27DOI: 10.1177/20319525241239287
Eva Kocher
This article finds that the ECJ, in its judgment of 19 October 2023 (C-660/20), has succeeded in achieving a good degree of legal clarity by stating that difference in treatment of part-time workers can be established on the basis of a comparison of individual components of the remuneration. It calls on the ECJ to avoid treating a formal assessment as a decisive issue, and highlights the substantive arguments the ECJ makes about the justification of differential treatment.
{"title":"A first step to clarity: Review of ECJ judgment of 19 October 2023, C-660/20(MK vs Lufthansa CityLine GmbH), ECLI:EU:C:2023:789","authors":"Eva Kocher","doi":"10.1177/20319525241239287","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525241239287","url":null,"abstract":"This article finds that the ECJ, in its judgment of 19 October 2023 (C-660/20), has succeeded in achieving a good degree of legal clarity by stating that difference in treatment of part-time workers can be established on the basis of a comparison of individual components of the remuneration. It calls on the ECJ to avoid treating a formal assessment as a decisive issue, and highlights the substantive arguments the ECJ makes about the justification of differential treatment.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2024-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140375841","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 : 2024-03-24DOI: 10.1177/20319525241239288
Fenicia Aceto
In 1 2020, there were 1.7 million cross-border workers in the European Union, creating difficulties in determining the applicable legislation for social security matters. The reason for this complexity is that even in cross-border activities, the legislation of only one Member State is applicable according to the Coordination Regulation 883/2004. This article examines the evolving landscape of social security coordination in the European Union. It explores the interplay between the European principle of free movement of workers and the complexities arising from various national social security systems, combined with the increase in telework. The article outlines the foundational legal frameworks underpinning social security within the European Union, including the Coordination Regulation EC 883/2004, and discusses primarily the challenges in applying these rules to cross-border teleworkers. It further analyses the implications of the new Multilateral Framework Agreement, providing a nuanced understanding of its role in offering simplified procedures and legal certainty for habitual cross-border teleworkers. The article also highlights the Agreement's limitations, including its restricted scope and the persisting administrative burdens. The discussion extends to the broader context of ongoing legislative efforts and the need for more flexible and modern social security coordination rules in the European Union. The article aims to shed light on the critical issues surrounding social security coordination in an era of evolving work practices.
{"title":"Cross-border workers - navigating the challenges of social security coordination rules in the era of telework in the European Union","authors":"Fenicia Aceto","doi":"10.1177/20319525241239288","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525241239288","url":null,"abstract":"In 1 2020, there were 1.7 million cross-border workers in the European Union, creating difficulties in determining the applicable legislation for social security matters. The reason for this complexity is that even in cross-border activities, the legislation of only one Member State is applicable according to the Coordination Regulation 883/2004. This article examines the evolving landscape of social security coordination in the European Union. It explores the interplay between the European principle of free movement of workers and the complexities arising from various national social security systems, combined with the increase in telework. The article outlines the foundational legal frameworks underpinning social security within the European Union, including the Coordination Regulation EC 883/2004, and discusses primarily the challenges in applying these rules to cross-border teleworkers. It further analyses the implications of the new Multilateral Framework Agreement, providing a nuanced understanding of its role in offering simplified procedures and legal certainty for habitual cross-border teleworkers. The article also highlights the Agreement's limitations, including its restricted scope and the persisting administrative burdens. The discussion extends to the broader context of ongoing legislative efforts and the need for more flexible and modern social security coordination rules in the European Union. The article aims to shed light on the critical issues surrounding social security coordination in an era of evolving work practices.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2024-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140386009","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 : 2024-03-22DOI: 10.1177/20319525241239632
Fife Ogunde
Algorithmic management, though less attention-grabbing than total job automation, is expected to become even more influential and powerful over time. The realities of algorithmic management have gained increasing scholarly attention over the last decade, particularly in the context of employment relationships in the platform economy. This article contributes to existing scholarship by comparing two important pieces of legislation impacting algorithmic management in the platform economy: Ontario's Digital Workers’ Rights Act 2022 (‘the Act’) and the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Improving Conditions in Platform Work (‘the Directive’). The thrust of this article is that while the general tenor of the Act indicates a step in the right direction, its restrictive approach to information rights limits its overall effectiveness in regulating algorithmic management of platform workers.
{"title":"Algorithmic management of platform workers: An examination of the Canadian and European approaches to regulation","authors":"Fife Ogunde","doi":"10.1177/20319525241239632","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525241239632","url":null,"abstract":"Algorithmic management, though less attention-grabbing than total job automation, is expected to become even more influential and powerful over time. The realities of algorithmic management have gained increasing scholarly attention over the last decade, particularly in the context of employment relationships in the platform economy. This article contributes to existing scholarship by comparing two important pieces of legislation impacting algorithmic management in the platform economy: Ontario's Digital Workers’ Rights Act 2022 (‘the Act’) and the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Improving Conditions in Platform Work (‘the Directive’). The thrust of this article is that while the general tenor of the Act indicates a step in the right direction, its restrictive approach to information rights limits its overall effectiveness in regulating algorithmic management of platform workers.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2024-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140203448","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 : 2024-03-21DOI: 10.1177/20319525241239283
Samantha Velluti
Growing concerns over labour standards and workers’ rights in global supply chains (GSCs) have led many companies to adopt codes of conduct (CoCs) as part of increasing attempts to self-regulate through Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) instruments to promote international labour standards in suppliers’ factories. However, improvements in labour standards and the level of protection of workers’ rights in GSCs are unsatisfactory, the garment industry labour force being a case in point. At European Union (EU) level this has led to the adoption of an EU corporate sustainability package in addition to previously adopted sector-specific/thematic due diligence legislation. This article looks closely at selected labour standards and labour rights aspects of the EU proposed Directive on corporate sustainability due diligence (CSDD) and evaluates its contribution to the improvement of workers’ rights protection in global garment supply chains.
{"title":"Labour standards in global garment supply chains and the proposed EU corporate sustainability due diligence directive","authors":"Samantha Velluti","doi":"10.1177/20319525241239283","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525241239283","url":null,"abstract":"Growing concerns over labour standards and workers’ rights in global supply chains (GSCs) have led many companies to adopt codes of conduct (CoCs) as part of increasing attempts to self-regulate through Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) instruments to promote international labour standards in suppliers’ factories. However, improvements in labour standards and the level of protection of workers’ rights in GSCs are unsatisfactory, the garment industry labour force being a case in point. At European Union (EU) level this has led to the adoption of an EU corporate sustainability package in addition to previously adopted sector-specific/thematic due diligence legislation. This article looks closely at selected labour standards and labour rights aspects of the EU proposed Directive on corporate sustainability due diligence (CSDD) and evaluates its contribution to the improvement of workers’ rights protection in global garment supply chains.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2024-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140203865","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 : 2024-02-27DOI: 10.1177/20319525241234434
Natalie Videbæk Munkholm
The article analyses the CJEU ruling C-311/21 TimePartner, where the Court interpreted the option provided in the Temporary Agency Work Directive for social partners to derogate from the principle of equal treatment. The CJEU concluded that the term ‘while respecting the overall protection of temporary agency workers’ is a criterion for using the option to derogate, and that a derogating collective agreement must be subject to legal review of fulfilling this criterion, even in Member States where collective agreements are presumed to be correct. Furthermore, the CJEU ruled that in order to respect the overall protection, any disadvantages in basic working conditions, i.e., working time and pay, should be set off against other advantages relating to the basic working conditions for the temporary agency workers. Finally, that the assessment is an in concreto comparison of disadvantages and advantages in terms of the basic working conditions applicable at the specific user undertaking. The article argues that the CJEU, with this approach, at the same time restricts the room for negotiation of national social partners concluding derogating agreements, and directs the legal review of the national judiciaries. This approach may interfere in the national industrial relations systems in some Member States more than others. The article then discusses how the Danish legal framework respects the overall protection of temporary agency workers. Temporary agency workers are addressed in many collective agreements in force at user undertakings with a view to counteracting circumvention of the collective agreement, and likewise, many temporary work agencies are covered by collective agreements. The transposition process in 2013 of the option to derogate is presented. The Danish Supreme Court in 2019 ruled, that the term ‘respecting the overall protection’ in the derogation provision in the Danish Temporary Agency Workers Act constitutes a legal criterion, which can be subject to judicial review, and is not an automatic consequence of a collective agreement. The article discusses how an assessment of the level of protection would be carried out in Danish industrial judiciaries, taking inspiration from earlier industrial case law comparing the overall protection of competing collective agreements. The article finally asserts that the approach of the CJEU in the TimePartner ruling protects temporary agency workers rather than pursuing flexibility in the labour markets, and as such favours one of the dual aims of the Directive. In that light, the approach taken by the CJEU ensures that derogating collective agreements meet certain standards in terms of the basic working conditions of temporary agency workers. At the same time, the ruling does not interfere with other negotiated or legislated working conditions, where the TAW Directive does not in itself require equal treatment or ‘overall protection’. The limitation of the TAW Directive to concern equal treatment on
{"title":"The ‘overall protection’ of temporary agency workers, the role of social partners, and the case of Denmark","authors":"Natalie Videbæk Munkholm","doi":"10.1177/20319525241234434","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525241234434","url":null,"abstract":"The article analyses the CJEU ruling C-311/21 TimePartner, where the Court interpreted the option provided in the Temporary Agency Work Directive for social partners to derogate from the principle of equal treatment. The CJEU concluded that the term ‘while respecting the overall protection of temporary agency workers’ is a criterion for using the option to derogate, and that a derogating collective agreement must be subject to legal review of fulfilling this criterion, even in Member States where collective agreements are presumed to be correct. Furthermore, the CJEU ruled that in order to respect the overall protection, any disadvantages in basic working conditions, i.e., working time and pay, should be set off against other advantages relating to the basic working conditions for the temporary agency workers. Finally, that the assessment is an in concreto comparison of disadvantages and advantages in terms of the basic working conditions applicable at the specific user undertaking. The article argues that the CJEU, with this approach, at the same time restricts the room for negotiation of national social partners concluding derogating agreements, and directs the legal review of the national judiciaries. This approach may interfere in the national industrial relations systems in some Member States more than others. The article then discusses how the Danish legal framework respects the overall protection of temporary agency workers. Temporary agency workers are addressed in many collective agreements in force at user undertakings with a view to counteracting circumvention of the collective agreement, and likewise, many temporary work agencies are covered by collective agreements. The transposition process in 2013 of the option to derogate is presented. The Danish Supreme Court in 2019 ruled, that the term ‘respecting the overall protection’ in the derogation provision in the Danish Temporary Agency Workers Act constitutes a legal criterion, which can be subject to judicial review, and is not an automatic consequence of a collective agreement. The article discusses how an assessment of the level of protection would be carried out in Danish industrial judiciaries, taking inspiration from earlier industrial case law comparing the overall protection of competing collective agreements. The article finally asserts that the approach of the CJEU in the TimePartner ruling protects temporary agency workers rather than pursuing flexibility in the labour markets, and as such favours one of the dual aims of the Directive. In that light, the approach taken by the CJEU ensures that derogating collective agreements meet certain standards in terms of the basic working conditions of temporary agency workers. At the same time, the ruling does not interfere with other negotiated or legislated working conditions, where the TAW Directive does not in itself require equal treatment or ‘overall protection’. The limitation of the TAW Directive to concern equal treatment on","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2024-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140025230","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 : 2024-02-26DOI: 10.1177/20319525241228979
Michael Wilderspin
The notion of the place (or country) in or from which the employee habitually carries out his or her work in performance of the contract of employment plays an important role in determining the allocation of international jurisdiction and the law applicable to the employment contract in the case of international transport. The CJEU has interpreted the notion of ‘where, or from where, the employee habitually carries out his or her work’ very broadly, concomitantly reducing the scope of the ‘engaging place of business’ criterion. This article shows the evolution of CJEU case law and its contribution to the development of the notion of habitual workplace in the field of international transport.
{"title":"The contribution of the CJEU to the notion of habitual workplace in the field of international transport","authors":"Michael Wilderspin","doi":"10.1177/20319525241228979","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525241228979","url":null,"abstract":"The notion of the place (or country) in or from which the employee habitually carries out his or her work in performance of the contract of employment plays an important role in determining the allocation of international jurisdiction and the law applicable to the employment contract in the case of international transport. The CJEU has interpreted the notion of ‘where, or from where, the employee habitually carries out his or her work’ very broadly, concomitantly reducing the scope of the ‘engaging place of business’ criterion. This article shows the evolution of CJEU case law and its contribution to the development of the notion of habitual workplace in the field of international transport.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2024-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139977213","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 : 2024-02-24DOI: 10.1177/20319525241227400
Gerrard C. Boot
A Dutch court has interpreted the national implementation of Art. 13 of the Directive on Transparent and Predictable Working Conditions, finding in favour of a high level of protection of workers against employers’ claims for training cost compensation.
{"title":"Broad application of the training cost rule in the netherlands","authors":"Gerrard C. Boot","doi":"10.1177/20319525241227400","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525241227400","url":null,"abstract":"A Dutch court has interpreted the national implementation of Art. 13 of the Directive on Transparent and Predictable Working Conditions, finding in favour of a high level of protection of workers against employers’ claims for training cost compensation.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2024-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139954830","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 : 2024-02-20DOI: 10.1177/20319525241227837
Daniel Ulber
This article critically examines the European Court of Justice's (ECJ) decision in the TimePartner case and its implications for labour market integration in the context of temporary agency work. The author supports the ECJ's position on the rule-exception relationship within Directive 2008/104/EC, emphasising equal treatment for temporary agency workers. The analysis explores the alignment between the ECJ's approach and the Directive's goal of creating a non-discriminatory, transparent, and proportionate framework for worker protection. Within the German legal landscape, where there has been reluctance to implement the Directive, complex collective agreements have led to substantial remuneration disparities between regular employees and temporary agency workers. The absence of statutory regulations on overall protection for temporary agency workers, coupled with reluctance on the part of courts to intervene in collective agreements, presents challenges for labour market integration. The article also addresses the assumption of an inherent warranted correctness of collective agreements and its potential implications for EU law enforcement, recognising this may limit the judicial review of collective agreements for compliance with EU Directives, potentially undermining EU law effectiveness. In conclusion, this analysis sheds light on the consequences of the ECJ's TimePartner case decision, particularly in Germany, and suggests the need for more detailed, industry-specific collective agreements to better meet the Directive's requirements.
{"title":"The Role of the Social Partners and the ‘Overall protection of temporary agency workers’: The ECJ decision in the TimePartner case and the legal and actual situation in Germany","authors":"Daniel Ulber","doi":"10.1177/20319525241227837","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525241227837","url":null,"abstract":"This article critically examines the European Court of Justice's (ECJ) decision in the TimePartner case and its implications for labour market integration in the context of temporary agency work. The author supports the ECJ's position on the rule-exception relationship within Directive 2008/104/EC, emphasising equal treatment for temporary agency workers. The analysis explores the alignment between the ECJ's approach and the Directive's goal of creating a non-discriminatory, transparent, and proportionate framework for worker protection. Within the German legal landscape, where there has been reluctance to implement the Directive, complex collective agreements have led to substantial remuneration disparities between regular employees and temporary agency workers. The absence of statutory regulations on overall protection for temporary agency workers, coupled with reluctance on the part of courts to intervene in collective agreements, presents challenges for labour market integration. The article also addresses the assumption of an inherent warranted correctness of collective agreements and its potential implications for EU law enforcement, recognising this may limit the judicial review of collective agreements for compliance with EU Directives, potentially undermining EU law effectiveness. In conclusion, this analysis sheds light on the consequences of the ECJ's TimePartner case decision, particularly in Germany, and suggests the need for more detailed, industry-specific collective agreements to better meet the Directive's requirements.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2024-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139954825","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：