Collective redress and workers’ rights in Slovenia

In 2017, the Collective Actions Act introduced a new type of lawsuit – the collective action – into the Slovenian legal order. A collective action can be lodged in cases of instances of so-called ‘mass harm’, including mass violations of workers’ rights. This could improve the effectiveness of enforcement of workers’ rights in practice. Instead of a number of individual labour disputes concerning the same or similar violations of workers’ rights, a collective action can be lodged by trade unions or other representative collective actors in this field. Both opt-in and opt-out approaches are possible and the decision on this is left to the discretion of the court. Despite many positive aspects, only one collective action in the area of labour rights has been lodged to date. In this contribution I analyse legal regulation of the existing collective redress mechanism and possible reasons for deficiencies discerned in its functioning in practice.

United we stand, divided we sue: Collective access to court for labour and social security claims in Sweden

While Sweden has long enjoyed a solid reputation for protecting weaker parties through a comprehensive welfare state and a labour market governed by collective bargaining, its system for enforcing these rights has rested upon the public authorities and the social partners rather than on judicial proceedings. Against this background, this article examines the legal avenues for bringing collective actions and obtaining collective redress before courts in social security and labour law cases in Sweden. It finds that the relevant legislation does not explicitly provide for collective redress in either field. Within social security law, collective access to court is practically excluded, whereas in labour law, the current procedural framework can only with difficulty be construed as lending itself to measures of collective redress, and then only with some significant legal and practical limitations. While indicative of the general situation as regards collective redress in Sweden, whose legislation on group actions has been criticised for its toothlessness and has been put to little practical use, this also suggests that the tradition of collectivism in the Swedish social security and labour market systems still does not translate into collectivism in judicial redress.

Collective redress in labour and social law disputes: An (attractive) option for the EU?

Collective redress has a lot of appeal as an enforcement tool, but historically it has been seen as somewhat unfitting for the European legal landscape. Despite this, many EU national legal systems have introduced collective redress mechanisms. The area of EU labour and social law, however, has been slow to catch up with this trend. This article discusses whether collective redress in labour and social law disputes could be an attractive option for the EU. Relying on an analysis of the legal opportunity structure it proposes some ideas on how to advance. All in all, collective redress is no panacea but could potentially complement and improve the EU enforcement toolbox, particularly in areas where there is evidence of persistent enforcement gaps.

Collective redress and workers’ rights in the Netherlands

This contribution discusses the Dutch possibilities of collective redress in the domain of labour law. More specifically, it examines the legal options of bringing collective actions and obtaining collective redress in Dutch courts in labour cases, and elaborates on the relevant legal framework as well as the extent to which these opportunities have been used in practice. Findings imply that the Netherlands was among one of the first European countries to introduce a general collective action system. This general collective action regime allows unions and other interest groups to raise cases to protect workers’ rights, even outside the scope of collective labour agreements. Such a collective action regime, however, is not commonly used in practice. Nevertheless, as of January 2020 the admissibility criteria for this general collective redress mechanism have been expanded and it has become an ‘opt-out’ regime, without the need for individual workers to initiate individual follow-up proceedings in the event of a successful case. The latter could improve the effective enforcement of workers’ rights in practice and could provide an incentive for trade unions and other organisations that are active in the protection of workers’ rights to incite a collective action.

Collective access to national courts for labour law and social policy disputes: Austria

With this paper we aimed to give an insight into Austria's labour and social security jurisdiction, notably into different forms of collective redress within this system. As the Austrian Labour and Social Courts Act provides for certain instruments of collective redress, the primary focus will be on those. The main drawback of those existing forms of collective action for labour law matters, however, is the lacking possibility for the single employee to enforce the respective judgement. Hence it can only serve as a legal test case. In that respect, instruments of Austria's general civil procedural law could present a practical alternative to the problem and thus the legal framework and ongoing academic debate about the application of those procedures is also a key part of the paper.

Special issue introduction: Collective redress for the enforcement of labour law

This article introduces the special issue on ‘Collective redress in labour law’. Even the best labour code in the world would be practically useless without procedural rules to enable its enforcement. The contributions in this special issue show that, while the mechanism of collective redress certainly functions with mixed results and often is underused in practice, it is nevertheless a valuable tool in the enforcement toolbox, where available. It might be particularly useful for some groups of workers, such as those who lack individual means for asserting their employment-based rights in their own name. While not an answer to all problems, and undoubtedly, not sufficient to close the justice gap for many European workers on its own, collective redress, if adequately constructed, could complement and improve existing enforcement mechanisms in both national and EU labour law.

ALIGNING THE BRUSSELS REGIME WITH THE REPRESENTATIVE ACTIONS DIRECTIVE

European private international law has long been recognised as improperly set up to deal with cross-border collective redress. In light of this shortcoming, it seems unfortunate that the private international law implications of the Representative Actions Directive (Directive (EU) No 2020/1828) have not yet been addressed coherently by the European legislator. This article examines to what extent the policy of promoting collective redress can be supported, even if only partially, through a reinterpretation of the jurisdictional rules of the Brussels Ia Regulation. Furthermore, it discusses which legislative measures need to be adopted to better accommodate collective redress mechanisms within the Brussels regime.

Are Class Actions Finally (Re)conquering Europe? Some Remarks on Directive 2020/1828

The article provides a brief overview of the background of the new European Union directive on representative actions for protection of the collective interest of consumers (Directive 2020/1828). It describes the basic elements of the directive and explains the major changes that have occurred since the European Commission issued its Recommendation document on collective redress in 2013. The author highlights the issues of the scope of application of the directive, of legal standing to bring a representative action, of collective settlements, and of the problem of funding for collective actions. This discussion puts emphasis on the need to extend legal standing to individual members of the group and articulates an appeal to national legislatures, particularly in Germany, to be more open-minded towards commercial litigation funding and the establishment of a public access-to-justice fund designed to guarantee the effectiveness of Directive 2020/1828 and its implementation.

Collective Proceedings

This chapter assesses the mechanisms for collective redress under the European Rules of Civil Procedure. Part XI of the Rules adopts a broad, non-sectoral approach, which is consistent with approaches across many European jurisdictions and was the approach by the European Commission in 2013. It is, however, broadly consistent in approach with that taken by the European Union in 2013 and 2018. This Part is divided into four sections, each of which deals with different mass harm situations. The first concerns collective injunctive relief (Collective Interest Injunctions); the second concerns collective proceedings for the recovery of damages or for declaratory relief (Collective Proceedings); the third provides a mechanism to declare binding a collective settlement entered into by the parties to a pending collective proceeding; and finally, a mechanism to declare a collective settlement entered into outside of collective proceedings binding.

Using Educational Institutional Archives to Unsettle and Rectify Racial Pasts

This article offers a pedagogical response to the growing demand that institutions of higher education must contend with their racial pasts. Drawing upon concepts from the literature on collective memory, students work with institutional archives that showcase localized examples of racial injustice. Students are then asked to imagine potential options for the collective redress of these institutional racial pasts. This activity provides a chance for students to consider how racial histories are preserved and told, and to suggest solutions for changing that story. Moreover, through engaging in this activity, students are encouraged to see their campus environments within the context of contemporary understandings of institutional racism.