Collective rights of platform workers: The role of EU law

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 406-424
Author(s):  
Tamás Gyulavári
Keyword(s):  
Collective Bargaining ◽  
Trade Unions ◽  
Employment Protection ◽  
Economic Activities ◽  
Labour Law ◽  
Digital Platforms ◽  
Collective Rights ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right

Platform work is a new umbrella concept which covers a heterogeneous group of economic activities performed through digital platforms. Effective collective rights and bargaining would be essential for platform workers due to their vulnerable employment status. Yet collective organization of platform workers is troublesome, so trade unions face difficulties. The protection of the labour law directives is limited by their personal scope, which may be gradually expanded by the broad ECJ interpretation of the ‘worker’ concept. The effective right to collective bargaining would be particularly important, but it is restricted by EU antitrust rules with an exemption only for employees. In the last decade, the European Court has moved towards a wider personal scope of collective bargaining by interpreting the concept of ‘worker’. The recent FNV Kunsten decision used the notion of ‘false self-employed’ to go beyond the national concept of ‘employee’, but the wide interpretation of ‘worker’ shall be based on the need and necessity of employment protection deriving from economic dependency. As an alternative, the Gebhard formula may be invoked to grant the right to collective bargaining for platform workers.

The Wapping Dispute and Labour Law

1986 ◽  
Vol 45 (2) ◽  
pp. 285-304 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. D. Ewing ◽  
B. W. Napier
Keyword(s):  
Collective Bargaining ◽  
Trade Unions ◽  
Industrial Relations ◽  
Labour Law ◽  
International Group ◽  
Industrial Conflict ◽  
The Law ◽  
Rich Material ◽  
The Right

A decade ago the conflict between George Ward, proprietor of Grunwick Processing, and the Association of Professional, Executive Clerical and Computer Staff (APEX) provided a platform for an extended debate about the role of the law in industrial relations, the right of employers to refuse to recognise trade unions for collective bargaining purposes and, in particular, the efficacy of legislation as a means of promoting such recognition. In 1986 the decision to move the printing of various newspapers within the News International Group (the chairman of which is Mr. Rupert Murdoch) from Fleet Street to a new purpose-built printing plant at Wapping in London's docklands occasioned another set-piece battle between labour and a strong-minded employer. The issues and the climate of industrial relations in which the dispute took place are very different but, like Grunwick, the Wapping dispute provides rich material for all interested in how the law can be used as part of the strategy of industrial conflict.

Solving the ‘Gig-saw’? Collective Rights and Platform Work

2019 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. 352-376 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Doherty ◽  
Valentina Franca
Keyword(s):  
Collective Bargaining ◽  
Employment Status ◽  
Employment Relationship ◽  
Labour Law ◽  
Collective Rights ◽  
Key Stakeholders ◽  
The Social ◽  
Social Partners ◽  
Platform Economy

Abstract There are few topics in contemporary labour law scholarship that have generated more literature than work in the so-called ‘platform economy’. To date, much work has focussed on the question of defining the personal scope of the employment relationship and on the problems of using existing classifications of employment status in the context of work organised via platforms. This article seeks to address the much less-discussed issue of how collective bargaining may function in the ‘platform economy’, and the role of collective labour law actors, most notably the social partners. The article argues that, rather than focussing on individual employment status and litigation, it is by developing a regulatory framework supportive of, and that involves key stakeholders in, strong sectoral collective bargaining that work in the ‘platform economy’ can be adequately regulated to the benefit of workers, business and the State.

Normative Interactions and the Development of Labour Law: A European Perspective

2009 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 377-398 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sophie Robin-Olivier
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Trade Unions ◽  
Essential Elements ◽  
Combination Method ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Multiple Sources ◽  
Labour Law ◽  
Human Right ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right

AbstractIn important recent cases dealing with labour law issues, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) relied on a combination of international, European and domestic sources to justify their decisions. In Viking and Laval, the ECJ recognised that the right to take collective action as a fundamental right protected by EU law. In Demir and Baykara v Turkey, the ECtHR decided, for the first time, that the right to bargain collectively is an essential elements the right to form and to join trade unions covered by Article 11 of the European Convention for the protection of Human Rights. This chapter considers the reliance on multiple sources of law in this series of cases and questions the ‘combination method’ used by European courts to identify or interpret human right provisions. It argues that globalisation of legal sources in the area of labour law does not necessarily lead to ‘globalisation’ of labour law, allowing common solutions or, at least, harmonised solutions to come to life. The outcome of normative interaction is not universal labour law but instead largely depends on which court decides the case. Therefore, litigation strategies in the field of labour law should make use of the potential of normative interactions without ignoring the opportunities offered by the diversity of courts.

In Defence of Trade-Unionism: Bill Wedderburn and Rookes v. Barnard

2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-110
Author(s):  
Paul Smith
Keyword(s):  
Trade Unions ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Labour Law ◽  
Trade Disputes ◽  
High Court ◽  
Labour Relations ◽  
Trade Unionism ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
The Right

Bill Wedderburn (1927-2012) - from 1977, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton - was a towering figure in the world of labour law. His commitment to trade-unionism and the right of workers to take industrial action, given the asymmetrical nature of the employment relationship, ran deep, pervading every aspect of his forensic, sometimes biting, analysis of labour law and the role of the common law. Prompted by the Rookes decision in the High Court, 1961, and the subsequent decision of the House of Lords Judicial Committee, 1964, Wedderburn launched a wide-ranging defence - academic and public - of trade unions’ freedom to strike and the Trade Disputes Act (TDA) 1906. He argued that the House of Lords’ decision had created a new common law liability which evaded the protections in the TDA 1906. This was neutralized by the Trade Disputes Act 1965, but a new wider version of the TDA had to wait for the passage of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act, as amended in 1976.

Workers, trade unions and labour law post Covid-19: Time to seize the moment

2021 ◽  
Vol 122 (1) ◽  
pp. 132-141
Author(s):  
Carolyn Jones
Keyword(s):  
Trade Unions ◽  
Public Attitudes ◽  
Employment Protection ◽  
Labour Law ◽  
Enforcement Mechanisms ◽  
The Moment ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Voice ◽  
Low Pay

The world of work has changed. Public attitudes on the role of workers, trade unions and labour law have also changed during the pandemic. People expect the contribution made by workers to be recognised and rewarded. Insecurity, low pay and job segregation are seen as unacceptable. Employment protection and enforcement mechanisms in the UK have been exposed as woefully inadequate. Forty years of neoliberal policies of privatisation, deregulation and austerity have taken their toll and it is time for change. This article explores why, and how the voice of workers and trade unions must be amplified in any post-Covid settlement.

scholarly journals Inequality between capital and labour and among wage-earners: the role of collective bargaining and trade unions

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-46
Author(s):  
Maarten Keune
Keyword(s):  
Collective Bargaining ◽  
Wage Inequality ◽  
Trade Unions ◽  
Bargaining Power ◽  
Union Density ◽  
General Terms ◽  
Union Bargaining Power ◽  
Wage Earners ◽  
The Relationship

In the context of rising inequality between capital and labour and among wage-earners in Europe, this state-of-the-art article reviews the literature concerning the relationship between collective bargaining and inequality. It focuses on two main questions: (i) what is the relationship between collective bargaining, union bargaining power and inequality between capital and labour? and (ii) what is the relationship between collective bargaining, union bargaining power and wage inequality among wage-earners? Both questions are discussed in general terms and for single- and multi-employer bargaining systems. It is argued that collective bargaining coverage and union density are negatively related to both types of inequality. These relationships are however qualified by four additional factors: who unions represent, the weight of union objectives other than wages, the statutory minimum wage, and extensions of collective agreements by governments.

scholarly journals COLLECTIVE LABOUR RIGHTS AS THE PRINCIPLES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION LABOUR LAW

2019 ◽  
pp. 43-46
Author(s):  
O. M. Rym
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Collective Bargaining ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Labour Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Labour Rights ◽  
Social Partners ◽  
The Right

The article deals with certain aspects of collective labour rights in the European Union. Prerequisites and procedure of this rights guaranting as general principles of EU law are analyzed and their content is characterized. It is emphasized that such legal establishing took place somewhat haphazardly, both at the level of the acts of primary and secondary law of the European Union and in the case law. As a result, there is no single position on the spectrum of collective labour rights as principles of EU labor law. The author focuses on significant changes in the understanding of the necessity of cooperation of social partners and the extension of their interaction at the supranational level. It is under the responsibility of the European Commission to promote cooperation between Member States and to facilitate coordination of their activities in the field of the right of association and collective bargaining between employers and employees. The article clarifies the content of collective labour rights as general principles of EU law on the basis of EU legal acts, the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, as well as the scientific works of domestic and foreign scholars. It is noted that the system of collective labour rights, as general principles of EU labour law, consists of the right of collective bargaining and collective action, the right of employees to information and consultation within the enterprise, as well as the freedom of assembly and association. It is concluded that the necessity of cooperation between the social partners is recognized as one of the foundations of EU labour law. Herewith appropriate interaction is ensured through the normative-legal consolidation of collective labour rights and procedures for their implementation. After all, European Union legal acts allow employees and employers’ representatives to play an active role in regulating labour legal relations. For example, Member States may instruct employers and employees, upon their joint request, to implement Council directives or decisions. In addition, many directives contain warnings about the possibility of derogating from their provisions through the adoption of a collective agreement.

Re-Conceptualizing the Right to Seek and Obtain Asylum in International Law

2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 303-332
Author(s):  
Salvatore Fabio Nicolosi
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
The Past ◽  
European Court ◽  
Triggering Factor ◽  
The Right ◽  
Human Rights Standards

Over the past few years the issue of asylum has progressively become interrelated with human rights. Asylum-related stresses, including refugee flows and mass displacements, have mitigated the traditional idea of asylum as an absolute state right, in so far as international human rights standards of protection require that states may have the responsibility to provide asylum seekers with protection. Following this premise, the article argues that the triggering factor of such overturning is significantly represented by the judicial approach to the institution of asylum by regional human rights courts. After setting the background on the interrelation of asylum with human rights, this article conceptualises the right to asylum as derived from the principle of non-refoulement and to this extent it delves into the role of the two regional human rights courts, notably the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR), in order to explore whether an emerging judicial cross-fertilisation may contribute to re-conceptualisation of the right to asylum from a human rights perspective.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document