Pub Date : 2023-05-17DOI: 10.1177/20319525231172091
Alessandra Ingrao
This contribution analyses the content and the relevance of the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the Leistritz AG/LH case which does not preclude national legislation from providing that a data controller (or a data processor) may terminate the employment contract of a data protection officer (DPO) only with just cause, even if the contractual termination is not related to the performance of that officer's tasks, in so far as such legislation does not undermine the achievement of the objectives of that regulation.
{"title":"Dismissal for objective reason of data protection officer between data protection law and national legislation","authors":"Alessandra Ingrao","doi":"10.1177/20319525231172091","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525231172091","url":null,"abstract":"This contribution analyses the content and the relevance of the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the Leistritz AG/LH case which does not preclude national legislation from providing that a data controller (or a data processor) may terminate the employment contract of a data protection officer (DPO) only with just cause, even if the contractual termination is not related to the performance of that officer's tasks, in so far as such legislation does not undermine the achievement of the objectives of that regulation.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45200374","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 : 2023-05-10DOI: 10.1177/20319525231167478
Aislinn Kelly-Lyth, Anna Thomas
Algorithmic outputs are increasingly shaping the employee experience, presenting a host of risks and impacts with far-reaching consequences. This contribution considers how algorithmic impact assessments should complement, as well as inform, an overarching ‘top-down’ framework for the governance of algorithmic management systems. While generalised obligations are crucial, identifying risk mitigations on a case-by-case basis can provide significant added value by (i) identifying and evaluating risks and impacts, and facilitating context-specific responses; (ii) striking a balance between generalised requirements and complete self-regulation; and (iii) ensuring that due regard to anticipated impacts and risk mitigation is built in from the design and development stages, through to deployment in the workplace. The criteria for an effective impact assessment obligation in the algorithmic management context are identified, including the appropriate stages, actors, and procedure. The Good Work Charter, which operates as a synthesis of legal principles, rights, and obligations, as well as ethical principles as they apply to the workplace, is proposed as an assessment framework. Finally, the article compares the proposed model with the existing obligation to carry out data protection impact assessments for high-risk data processing. The shortcomings of the latter obligation are explored, and a legislative approach to avoid duplication is proposed.
{"title":"Algorithmic management: Assessing the impacts of AI at work","authors":"Aislinn Kelly-Lyth, Anna Thomas","doi":"10.1177/20319525231167478","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525231167478","url":null,"abstract":"Algorithmic outputs are increasingly shaping the employee experience, presenting a host of risks and impacts with far-reaching consequences. This contribution considers how algorithmic impact assessments should complement, as well as inform, an overarching ‘top-down’ framework for the governance of algorithmic management systems. While generalised obligations are crucial, identifying risk mitigations on a case-by-case basis can provide significant added value by (i) identifying and evaluating risks and impacts, and facilitating context-specific responses; (ii) striking a balance between generalised requirements and complete self-regulation; and (iii) ensuring that due regard to anticipated impacts and risk mitigation is built in from the design and development stages, through to deployment in the workplace. The criteria for an effective impact assessment obligation in the algorithmic management context are identified, including the appropriate stages, actors, and procedure. The Good Work Charter, which operates as a synthesis of legal principles, rights, and obligations, as well as ethical principles as they apply to the workplace, is proposed as an assessment framework. Finally, the article compares the proposed model with the existing obligation to carry out data protection impact assessments for high-risk data processing. The shortcomings of the latter obligation are explored, and a legislative approach to avoid duplication is proposed.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49340725","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 : 2023-05-08DOI: 10.1177/20319525231167981
Dan Calacci, Jake M L Stein
Regulating data collection and use in the workplace is now more a matter of regulating working conditions than data protection. This article argues that existing data protection law fails workers for precisely this reason. We examine how workers currently use data protection law, labour law, and technology to access and leverage the data they produce at work and identify key ways in which current regulation falls short. Existing regulations primarily aim to protect worker privacy, an approach that ignores the fact that data use now often defines the fundamental conditions of work, particularly in the gig economy. This is because a key limitation of modern data protection law for workers is its myopic focus on the individual ‘data subject’, whose rights to data stem from a right to privacy or data protection. Instead, data regulation in the workplace requires a framework that acknowledges the core interest workers have in accessing their data: to collectively exert greater agency and control at work. We argue that workplace data regulation should largely be a matter of workplace governance and worker co-determination, an approach rooted in workers’ rights, to negotiate the terms of their employment agreements and specific working environments.
{"title":"From access to understanding: Collective data governance for workers","authors":"Dan Calacci, Jake M L Stein","doi":"10.1177/20319525231167981","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525231167981","url":null,"abstract":"Regulating data collection and use in the workplace is now more a matter of regulating working conditions than data protection. This article argues that existing data protection law fails workers for precisely this reason. We examine how workers currently use data protection law, labour law, and technology to access and leverage the data they produce at work and identify key ways in which current regulation falls short. Existing regulations primarily aim to protect worker privacy, an approach that ignores the fact that data use now often defines the fundamental conditions of work, particularly in the gig economy. This is because a key limitation of modern data protection law for workers is its myopic focus on the individual ‘data subject’, whose rights to data stem from a right to privacy or data protection. Instead, data regulation in the workplace requires a framework that acknowledges the core interest workers have in accessing their data: to collectively exert greater agency and control at work. We argue that workplace data regulation should largely be a matter of workplace governance and worker co-determination, an approach rooted in workers’ rights, to negotiate the terms of their employment agreements and specific working environments.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48205179","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 : 2023-05-03DOI: 10.1177/20319525231167477
Zoe Adams, J. Wenckebach
This article sets out the case for co-determination in the context of work, with a particular emphasis on why this is mandated in relation to algorithmically managed work and workplaces in particular. Having set out the theoretical case for collective regulation of algorithmic management that includes extensive rights of co-determination, focusing on the power relations implied by algorithmic management for this purpose, the article goes on to explore the current state of collective regulation of algorithmic management in the UK and in Germany. From here, it explores existing EU law mechanisms relating to algorithmic management, highlighting their limits and potential, and identifying how, and in what ways, the blueprint outlined by Adams-Prassl et al in this Special Issue might be further elaborated and improved. The article then presents certain proposals for how to establish conditions conducive to the introduction of co-determination in the EU, both generally and in relation to algorithmic technologies more specifically, while engaging critically with the potential and the limitations of legal, top-down—as opposed to bottom-up—mechanisms to achieve this end.
{"title":"Collective regulation of algorithmic management","authors":"Zoe Adams, J. Wenckebach","doi":"10.1177/20319525231167477","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525231167477","url":null,"abstract":"This article sets out the case for co-determination in the context of work, with a particular emphasis on why this is mandated in relation to algorithmically managed work and workplaces in particular. Having set out the theoretical case for collective regulation of algorithmic management that includes extensive rights of co-determination, focusing on the power relations implied by algorithmic management for this purpose, the article goes on to explore the current state of collective regulation of algorithmic management in the UK and in Germany. From here, it explores existing EU law mechanisms relating to algorithmic management, highlighting their limits and potential, and identifying how, and in what ways, the blueprint outlined by Adams-Prassl et al in this Special Issue might be further elaborated and improved. The article then presents certain proposals for how to establish conditions conducive to the introduction of co-determination in the EU, both generally and in relation to algorithmic technologies more specifically, while engaging critically with the potential and the limitations of legal, top-down—as opposed to bottom-up—mechanisms to achieve this end.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41516323","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 : 2023-04-26DOI: 10.1177/20319525231167982
Antonio Aloisi, V. De Stefano
In this article, we provide an overview of efforts to regulate the various phases of the artificial intelligence (AI) life cycle. In doing so, we examine whether—and, if so, to what extent—highly fragmented legal frameworks are able to provide safeguards capable of preventing the dangers that stem from AI- and algorithm-driven organisational practices. We critically analyse related developments at the European Union (EU) level, namely the General Data Protection Regulation, the draft AI Regulation, and the proposal for a Directive on improving working conditions in platform work. We also consider bills and regulations proposed or adopted in the United States and Canada via a transatlantic comparative approach, underlining analogies and variations between EU and North American attitudes towards the risk assessment and management of AI systems. We aim to answer the following questions: Is the widely adopted risk-based approach fit for purpose? Is it consistent with the actual enforcement of fundamental rights at work, such as privacy, human dignity, equality and collective rights? To answer these questions, in section 2 we unpack the various, often ambiguous, facets of the notion(s) of ‘risk’—that is, the common denominator with the EU and North American legal instruments. Here, we determine that a scalable, decentralised framework is not appropriate for ensuring the enforcement of constitutional labour-related rights. In addition to presenting the key provisions of existing schemes in the EU and North America, in section 3 we disentangle the consistencies and tensions between the frameworks that regulate AI and constrain how it must be handled in specific contexts, such as work environments and platform-orchestrated arrangements. Paradoxically, the frenzied race to regulate AI-driven decision-making could exacerbate the current legal uncertainty and pave the way for regulatory arbitrage. Such a scenario would slow technological innovation and egregiously undermine labour rights. Thus, in section 4 we advocate for the adoption of a dedicated legal instrument at the supranational level to govern technologies that manage people in workplaces. Given the high stakes involved, we conclude by stressing the salience of a multi-stakeholder AI governance framework.
{"title":"Between risk mitigation and labour rights enforcement: Assessing the transatlantic race to govern AI-driven decision-making through a comparative lens","authors":"Antonio Aloisi, V. De Stefano","doi":"10.1177/20319525231167982","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525231167982","url":null,"abstract":"In this article, we provide an overview of efforts to regulate the various phases of the artificial intelligence (AI) life cycle. In doing so, we examine whether—and, if so, to what extent—highly fragmented legal frameworks are able to provide safeguards capable of preventing the dangers that stem from AI- and algorithm-driven organisational practices. We critically analyse related developments at the European Union (EU) level, namely the General Data Protection Regulation, the draft AI Regulation, and the proposal for a Directive on improving working conditions in platform work. We also consider bills and regulations proposed or adopted in the United States and Canada via a transatlantic comparative approach, underlining analogies and variations between EU and North American attitudes towards the risk assessment and management of AI systems. We aim to answer the following questions: Is the widely adopted risk-based approach fit for purpose? Is it consistent with the actual enforcement of fundamental rights at work, such as privacy, human dignity, equality and collective rights? To answer these questions, in section 2 we unpack the various, often ambiguous, facets of the notion(s) of ‘risk’—that is, the common denominator with the EU and North American legal instruments. Here, we determine that a scalable, decentralised framework is not appropriate for ensuring the enforcement of constitutional labour-related rights. In addition to presenting the key provisions of existing schemes in the EU and North America, in section 3 we disentangle the consistencies and tensions between the frameworks that regulate AI and constrain how it must be handled in specific contexts, such as work environments and platform-orchestrated arrangements. Paradoxically, the frenzied race to regulate AI-driven decision-making could exacerbate the current legal uncertainty and pave the way for regulatory arbitrage. Such a scenario would slow technological innovation and egregiously undermine labour rights. Thus, in section 4 we advocate for the adoption of a dedicated legal instrument at the supranational level to govern technologies that manage people in workplaces. Given the high stakes involved, we conclude by stressing the salience of a multi-stakeholder AI governance framework.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43065782","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 : 2023-04-24DOI: 10.1177/20319525231167983
Michael Veale, M. ‘. Silberman, Reuben Binns
The European Commission proposed a Directive on Platform Work at the end of 2021. While much attention has been placed on its effort to address misclassification of the employed as self-employed, it also contains ambitious provisions for the regulation of the algorithmic management prevalent on these platforms. Overall, these provisions are well-drafted, yet they require extra scrutiny in light of the fierce lobbying and resistance they will likely encounter in the legislative process, in implementation and in enforcement. In this article, we place the proposal in its sociotechnical context, drawing upon wide cross-disciplinary scholarship to identify a range of tensions, potential misinterpretations, and perversions that should be pre-empted and guarded against at the earliest possible stage. These include improvements to ex ante and ex post algorithmic transparency; identifying and strengthening the standard against which human reviewers of algorithmic decisions review; anticipating challenges of representation and organising in complex platform contexts; creating realistic ambitions for digital worker communication channels; and accountably monitoring and evaluating impacts on workers while limiting data collection. We encourage legislators and regulators at both European and national levels to act to fortify these provisions in the negotiation of the Directive, its potential transposition, and in its enforcement.
{"title":"Fortifying the algorithmic management provisions in the proposed Platform Work Directive","authors":"Michael Veale, M. ‘. Silberman, Reuben Binns","doi":"10.1177/20319525231167983","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525231167983","url":null,"abstract":"The European Commission proposed a Directive on Platform Work at the end of 2021. While much attention has been placed on its effort to address misclassification of the employed as self-employed, it also contains ambitious provisions for the regulation of the algorithmic management prevalent on these platforms. Overall, these provisions are well-drafted, yet they require extra scrutiny in light of the fierce lobbying and resistance they will likely encounter in the legislative process, in implementation and in enforcement. In this article, we place the proposal in its sociotechnical context, drawing upon wide cross-disciplinary scholarship to identify a range of tensions, potential misinterpretations, and perversions that should be pre-empted and guarded against at the earliest possible stage. These include improvements to ex ante and ex post algorithmic transparency; identifying and strengthening the standard against which human reviewers of algorithmic decisions review; anticipating challenges of representation and organising in complex platform contexts; creating realistic ambitions for digital worker communication channels; and accountably monitoring and evaluating impacts on workers while limiting data collection. We encourage legislators and regulators at both European and national levels to act to fortify these provisions in the negotiation of the Directive, its potential transposition, and in its enforcement.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43150717","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 : 2023-04-24DOI: 10.1177/20319525231167476
Aude Cefaliello, Phoebe V. Moore, R. Donoghue
The increasing deployment of algorithmic management in the workplace poses significant occupational safety and health risks for workers. In this article, we argue that existing and proposed EU regulatory frameworks are inadequate to address these risks, especially psychosocial risks, created or exacerbated by algorithmic management. While existing and proposed regulatory frameworks have significant implications for employers’ obligations to mitigate these risks, we identify several psychosocial risks created or exacerbated by algorithmic management and show how the current and proposed regulatory frameworks fall short of adequately addressing these risks. We observe that these frameworks, based largely in the ‘safety by design’ tradition, focus on the design phase of the technology life cycle. This focus does not adequately address risks that arise in the use or deployment stage of algorithmic management. There is therefore a need for a stand-alone piece of legislation at the EU level on algorithmic management. To address these shortcomings, we outline suggestions for provisions necessary for safe and healthy digitally managed work.
{"title":"Making algorithmic management safe and healthy for workers: Addressing psychosocial risks in new legal provisions","authors":"Aude Cefaliello, Phoebe V. Moore, R. Donoghue","doi":"10.1177/20319525231167476","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525231167476","url":null,"abstract":"The increasing deployment of algorithmic management in the workplace poses significant occupational safety and health risks for workers. In this article, we argue that existing and proposed EU regulatory frameworks are inadequate to address these risks, especially psychosocial risks, created or exacerbated by algorithmic management. While existing and proposed regulatory frameworks have significant implications for employers’ obligations to mitigate these risks, we identify several psychosocial risks created or exacerbated by algorithmic management and show how the current and proposed regulatory frameworks fall short of adequately addressing these risks. We observe that these frameworks, based largely in the ‘safety by design’ tradition, focus on the design phase of the technology life cycle. This focus does not adequately address risks that arise in the use or deployment stage of algorithmic management. There is therefore a need for a stand-alone piece of legislation at the EU level on algorithmic management. To address these shortcomings, we outline suggestions for provisions necessary for safe and healthy digitally managed work.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43572813","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 : 2023-04-20DOI: 10.1177/20319525231167299
Jeremias Adams-Prassl, Halefom H. Abraha, Aislinn Kelly-Lyth, M. ‘. Silberman, Sangh Rakshita
The promise—and perils—of algorithmic management are increasingly recognised in the literature. How should regulators respond to the automation of the full range of traditional employer functions, from hiring workers through to firing them? This article identifies two key regulatory gaps—an exacerbation of privacy harms and information asymmetries, and a loss of human agency—and sets out a series of policy options designed to address these novel harms. Redlines (prohibitions), purpose limitations, and individual as well as collective information rights are designed to protect against harmfully invasive data practices; provisions for human involvement ‘in the loop’ (banning fully automated terminations), ‘after the loop’ (a right to meaningful review), ‘before the loop’ (information and consultation rights) and ‘above the loop’ (impact assessments) aim to restore human agency in the deployment and governance of algorithmic management systems.
{"title":"Regulating algorithmic management: A blueprint","authors":"Jeremias Adams-Prassl, Halefom H. Abraha, Aislinn Kelly-Lyth, M. ‘. Silberman, Sangh Rakshita","doi":"10.1177/20319525231167299","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525231167299","url":null,"abstract":"The promise—and perils—of algorithmic management are increasingly recognised in the literature. How should regulators respond to the automation of the full range of traditional employer functions, from hiring workers through to firing them? This article identifies two key regulatory gaps—an exacerbation of privacy harms and information asymmetries, and a loss of human agency—and sets out a series of policy options designed to address these novel harms. Redlines (prohibitions), purpose limitations, and individual as well as collective information rights are designed to protect against harmfully invasive data practices; provisions for human involvement ‘in the loop’ (banning fully automated terminations), ‘after the loop’ (a right to meaningful review), ‘before the loop’ (information and consultation rights) and ‘above the loop’ (impact assessments) aim to restore human agency in the deployment and governance of algorithmic management systems.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-04-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46243832","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 : 2023-04-17DOI: 10.1177/20319525231167298
Jeremias Adams-Prassl, Halefom H. Abraha, Aislinn Kelly-Lyth, Sangh Rakshita, M. ‘. Silberman
This special issue of the European Labour Law Journal, edited by Jeremias Adams-Prassl, Halefom Abraha, Aislinn Kelly-Lyth, Sangh Rakshita and Michael ‘Six’ Silberman, explores the regulation of Algorithmic Management in the European Union and beyond. In our guest editorial, we set out the background to the project, introduce the reader to the key themes and highlights of the papers to follow, and acknowledge the support that the project has enjoyed.
本期《欧洲劳动法杂志》特刊由Jeremias Adams-Prassl、Halefom Abraha、aislin Kelly-Lyth、Sangh Rakshita和Michael ' Six ' Silberman编辑，探讨了欧盟及其他地区的算法管理监管。在我们的客座社论中，我们阐述了项目的背景，向读者介绍了论文的关键主题和亮点，并对项目所获得的支持表示感谢。
{"title":"Guest Editorial: Regulating algorithmic management","authors":"Jeremias Adams-Prassl, Halefom H. Abraha, Aislinn Kelly-Lyth, Sangh Rakshita, M. ‘. Silberman","doi":"10.1177/20319525231167298","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525231167298","url":null,"abstract":"This special issue of the European Labour Law Journal, edited by Jeremias Adams-Prassl, Halefom Abraha, Aislinn Kelly-Lyth, Sangh Rakshita and Michael ‘Six’ Silberman, explores the regulation of Algorithmic Management in the European Union and beyond. In our guest editorial, we set out the background to the project, introduce the reader to the key themes and highlights of the papers to follow, and acknowledge the support that the project has enjoyed.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41532958","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 : 2023-04-16DOI: 10.1177/20319525231165847
Frea De Keyzer
For many athletes, sport will always be seen as their greatest passion, but in addition, for some, sport has also become an economic activity, an activity through which one can earn income. Both professional athletes and (so-called) amateur athletes may conclude contracts with their clubs or federations, which also determine the (possible) variable and/or fixed remuneration they obtain in return for their performances. As sport can be seen as a form of employment, the key question to be asked is whether these contracts should be seen as employment contracts and, consequently, whether these athletes are all employees. This article wishes to contribute to the search for answers to this question. The research is limited to the Belgian legal system but has the ambition to feed a broader discussion. Starting from Belgian labour law, the article examines which conditions must be met in order to speak of an employment contract (labour, remuneration and authority). It can be concluded that many (paid) athletes, especially football players, will meet the legal conditions to be considered employees. This contribution focuses on team sports, with football as a typical example, because in this context exercise of authority is more obvious and discussions on the relationship with labour law are most acute. Furthermore, this article examines the specific legislation and jurisprudence concerning athletes. In the Belgian legal order, sports professionals constitute a separate category to which the legislator has given special status by adopting a lex specialis to the general Employment Contracts Act. Nevertheless, there are still discussions about the social protection these sports professionals enjoy compared to regular employees and non-professional athletes. Beyond that, the status of athletes who do not reach the remuneration threshold to fall within the scope of the Sports Professionals Act, remains unclear. Recently, a dichotomy was created within paid amateur football, showing a desire to keep some athletes out of the scope of labour law. However, labour law is mandatory in nature, so the question is whether this dichotomy can continue to exist. This article will make it clear that the relationship between labour law and sport remains a difficult one.
{"title":"The employment status of the sportsperson: The Belgian case","authors":"Frea De Keyzer","doi":"10.1177/20319525231165847","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525231165847","url":null,"abstract":"For many athletes, sport will always be seen as their greatest passion, but in addition, for some, sport has also become an economic activity, an activity through which one can earn income. Both professional athletes and (so-called) amateur athletes may conclude contracts with their clubs or federations, which also determine the (possible) variable and/or fixed remuneration they obtain in return for their performances. As sport can be seen as a form of employment, the key question to be asked is whether these contracts should be seen as employment contracts and, consequently, whether these athletes are all employees. This article wishes to contribute to the search for answers to this question. The research is limited to the Belgian legal system but has the ambition to feed a broader discussion. Starting from Belgian labour law, the article examines which conditions must be met in order to speak of an employment contract (labour, remuneration and authority). It can be concluded that many (paid) athletes, especially football players, will meet the legal conditions to be considered employees. This contribution focuses on team sports, with football as a typical example, because in this context exercise of authority is more obvious and discussions on the relationship with labour law are most acute. Furthermore, this article examines the specific legislation and jurisprudence concerning athletes. In the Belgian legal order, sports professionals constitute a separate category to which the legislator has given special status by adopting a lex specialis to the general Employment Contracts Act. Nevertheless, there are still discussions about the social protection these sports professionals enjoy compared to regular employees and non-professional athletes. Beyond that, the status of athletes who do not reach the remuneration threshold to fall within the scope of the Sports Professionals Act, remains unclear. Recently, a dichotomy was created within paid amateur football, showing a desire to keep some athletes out of the scope of labour law. However, labour law is mandatory in nature, so the question is whether this dichotomy can continue to exist. This article will make it clear that the relationship between labour law and sport remains a difficult one.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44317566","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：