社会合作伙伴的作用和 "对临时工的全面保护":欧洲法院在 TimePartner 案中的判决以及德国的法律和实际情况

IF 1.1 Q2 LAW European Labour Law Journal Pub Date : 2024-02-20 DOI:10.1177/20319525241227837
Daniel Ulber
{"title":"社会合作伙伴的作用和 \"对临时工的全面保护\":欧洲法院在 TimePartner 案中的判决以及德国的法律和实际情况","authors":"Daniel Ulber","doi":"10.1177/20319525241227837","DOIUrl":null,"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":"17 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":null,\"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\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Labour Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525241227837\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Labour Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525241227837","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文批判性地研究了欧洲法院(ECJ)在 TimePartner 案中的裁决及其对临时中介工作背景下劳动力市场一体化的影响。作者支持欧洲法院关于第 2008/104/EC 号指令中规则与例外关系的立场,强调临时工的平等待遇。分析探讨了欧洲法院的方法与指令的目标之间的一致性,指令的目标是建立一个非歧视、透明和适度的工人保护框架。在德国的法律环境中,由于不愿意执行《指令》,复杂的集体协议导致正式员工和临时工之间存在巨大的薪酬差距。由于缺乏关于临时工整体保护的法律规定,加上法院不愿干预集体协议,这给劳动力市场一体化带来了挑战。文章还讨论了集体协议固有的正当性假设及其对欧盟法律执行的潜在影响,认识到这可能会限制对集体协议是否符合欧盟指令的司法审查,从而可能损害欧盟法律的有效性。总之,本分析揭示了欧洲法院 TimePartner 案裁决的后果,尤其是在德国的后果,并表明有必要制定更详细的、针对特定行业的集体协议,以更好地满足指令的要求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
28.60%
发文量
29
期刊最新文献
Anti-discrimination cases decided by the Court of Justice of the EU in 2023 Resocialisation through prisoner remuneration: The unconstitutionally low remuneration of working prisoners in Germany Work in prison: Reintegration or exclusion and exploitation? Beyond profit: A model framework for ethical and feasible private prison labour Minding the gap? Blind spots in the ILO's and the EU's perspective on anti-forced labour policy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1