Subjects -> LABOR UNIONS (Total: 27 journals)
Showing 1 - 4 of 4 Journals sorted alphabetically
ADR Bulletin     Open Access   (Followers: 10)
Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5)
Arbeidsrett     Full-text available via subscription  
Arbeit. Zeitschrift für Arbeitsforschung, Arbeitsgestaltung und Arbeitspolitik     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1)
Arbetsliv i omvandling     Open Access  
Arbetsmarknad & Arbetsliv     Open Access  
British Journal of Industrial Relations     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 47)
Citizenship Studies     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10)
Creative Industries Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8)
Cuadernos de Relaciones Laborales     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
European Labour Law Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 18)
Gaceta Laboral     Open Access  
Global Labour Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 13)
Human Resource Development Quarterly     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 31)
Illawarra Unity - Journal of the Illawarra Branch of the Australian Society for the Study of Labour History     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
ILR Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 50)
Industrial Relations     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 32)
International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 32)
Journal of Labor and Society     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1)
Labor & Employment Law Forum     Open Access   (Followers: 13)
Labour History     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 16)
New Labor Forum     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10)
Relations industrielles / Industrial Relations     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 12)
Social Movement Studies: Journal of Social, Cultural and Political Protest     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 28)
South African Journal of Labour Relations     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 3)
Transfer - European Review of Labour and Research     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 16)
Work and Occupations     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 56)
Similar Journals
Journal Cover
European Labour Law Journal
Number of Followers: 18  
  Full-text available via subscription Subscription journal
ISSN (Print) 2031-9525 - ISSN (Online) 2399-5556
Published by Sage Publications Homepage  [1151 journals]
  • A shock to the system: sectoral bargaining under threat in Ireland
    • Authors: Alan Eustace
      Abstract: European Labour Law Journal, Ahead of Print.
      In Náisiúnta Leictreach Contraitheoir Éireann v Labour Court, the Irish High Court struck down as unconstitutional a key component of Ireland’s industrial relations system for the third time in recent years. The Court determined that the extension of collective agreements erga omnes breaches the constitutional prohibition on the delegation of legislative power. This note explains the background to that decision and critiques the Court’s reasoning from the perspective of a ‘labour constitution’ model of labour law, and in light of international and European legal principles. The decision appears to misunderstand the place of collective bargaining at a sectoral level within European internal market and competition law. It also seems to rule out any form of meaningful participation by workers, employers and their representatives in collective bargaining on a sectoral basis or through dedicated industrial relations machinery. According to the vision of Irish constitutional law put forward in this case, decisions relating to the administration of production and economic life more broadly must be reserved to the legislature. This is a significant loss for the autonomy of the social partners and represents an impoverished understanding of democracy and legitimacy within the constitutional order, and risks leaving Ireland even more of an outlier in Europe than it already is on the issue of sectoral collective bargaining.
      Citation: European Labour Law Journal
      PubDate: 2021-04-22T10:50:18Z
      DOI: 10.1177/20319525211000360
  • On the notion of ‘worker’ under EU law: new insights
    • Authors: Elena Gramano
      Abstract: European Labour Law Journal, Ahead of Print.
      This contribution analyses the content and relevance of the of the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the B/Yodel Delivery Network Ltd case, and discusses its meaning and impact on the notion of ‘worker’ under the EU law.
      Citation: European Labour Law Journal
      PubDate: 2021-03-16T05:31:51Z
      DOI: 10.1177/2031952521998812
  • Age-based salaries of judges, discrimination, and time limitations
    • Authors: Miriam Kullmann
      Abstract: European Labour Law Journal, Ahead of Print.
      While a two-month limitation period applicable for claims on back payments, the regulation of which is left to the Member States following the principle of national procedural autonomy, is in accordance with EU law, there is clearly a risk that the civil servants and judges concerned may not be in a position to establish whether, and the extent to which, they have been discriminated against, within such a short period of time.Case:Joined Cases C-773/18 to 775/18 TK, UL, VM/Land Sachsen-Anhalt ECLI: EU: C:2020:125
      Citation: European Labour Law Journal
      PubDate: 2021-03-16T05:31:31Z
      DOI: 10.1177/2031952521998810
  • Does an online professional profile violate an employer’s
    • Authors: David Mangan
      Abstract: European Labour Law Journal, Ahead of Print.
      The ECtHR’s decision in Herbai v Hungary focuses on freedom of expression. However, there is a larger issue that touches upon the overlap of employment obligations and professional engagement.
      Citation: European Labour Law Journal
      PubDate: 2021-03-12T05:15:52Z
      DOI: 10.1177/2031952521998813
  • Book Review
    • Authors: Achim Seifert
      Abstract: European Labour Law Journal, Ahead of Print.

      Citation: European Labour Law Journal
      PubDate: 2021-03-04T10:03:03Z
      DOI: 10.1177/2031952521994412
  • When mandatory exercise at work meets employees’ rights to privacy and
           non-discrimination: a comparative and European perspective
    • Authors: Céline Brassart Olsen
      Abstract: European Labour Law Journal, Ahead of Print.
      In 2017, the municipality of Copenhagen made exercise mandatory for social workers performing physical tasks, such as lifting patients, cooking and cleaning. Private Danish companies have also started to impose exercise on their employees, including sedentary employees. Rationale behind mandatory exercise in the workplace is that it makes employees healthier and more productive, which is a win-win for employees and employers. However, mandatory exercise can put employees in a vulnerable position as employers potentially interfere with some of the fundamental rights of employees, namely their bodily autonomy and privacy. In addition, the increased emphasis on exercise at work and being ‘physically fit’ can indirectly lead to unlawful discrimination practices in recruitment, during employment, and at termination, as employers may exclude or sanction people who are not be able, or do not want, to exercise on various grounds, ranging from age, disability, pregnancy, religion, to health conditions. Therefore, this article examines the lawfulness of mandatory exercise at work in light of the fundamental rights of employees in two selected jurisdictions (Denmark and France), as well as under relevant European Union (EU) law, and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and related case law. Using a comparative and European perspective, the article examines the legality of mandatory exercise at work in the selected jurisdictions. It analyses and compares the level of protection of employees’ rights to privacy, autonomy and non-discrimination in France and Denmark. It also assesses whether mandatory exercise could qualify as an occupational health and safety measure in the selected jurisdictions. The article examines these questions in light of the increasing recognition and integration of fundamental rights in labour law at European, EU, and national levels. The article finds that the French and Danish labour laws offer different levels of protection of employees’ rights to autonomy, privacy and the right to non-discrimination. As a result, mandatory exercise would likely be deemed to be legal in Denmark, and illegal in France. However, the legality of mandatory exercise under Danish law could be challenged in light of the strong protection of employees’ fundamental rights at EU and European levels. The article concludes that rather than an obligation, exercise should be framed as a right for employees.
      Citation: European Labour Law Journal
      PubDate: 2021-02-19T10:03:23Z
      DOI: 10.1177/2031952521994302
  • The notion of ‘employer’: Towards a uniform European
    • Authors: Matthijs van Schadewijk
      Abstract: European Labour Law Journal, Ahead of Print.
      The growth in multilateral working relationships (e.g. agency work, chains of sub-contracting and corporate groups) is causing Member States to increasingly scrutinise their traditional, contractual approach to the notion of ‘employer’. So far, little attention has been paid to the boundaries and limits that EU law sets when defining the employer. The lack of attention may have come to an end with the recent AFMB judgment, in which the Court ruled, for the first time, that the concept of employer in a provision of EU law had to be given an autonomous and uniform interpretation throughout the EU. Starting from the AFMB judgment, the author analyses the concept of employer in EU law. The author finds that the concept of employer in EU law can be described as ‘uniform in its functionality’: in EU law, the national concept of the employer is never absolute, but the circumstances and the way in which the national concept must be set aside depend on the context and the objective of the European legislation in question. Through this functional approach, EU law partly harmonises the various national approaches to the concept of the employer. Nevertheless, a lack of specific reasoning on the part of the Court may grant the Member States considerable leeway to uphold their own views on the concept.
      Citation: European Labour Law Journal
      PubDate: 2021-02-11T09:59:50Z
      DOI: 10.1177/2031952521991159
  • Introducing the autonomous employee category: The chance to create a
           flexible and secure employment relationship'
    • Authors: Merle Erikson
      Abstract: European Labour Law Journal, Ahead of Print.
      In 2018, the Estonian Ministry of Social Affairs came up with idea of introducing a new category of employee – the autonomous employee – in Estonia. This concept is based on Article 17(1) of the Working Time Directive, which allows derogations from the scope of the Directive for managing executives or other persons with autonomous decision-taking powers. The implementation of the concept of the autonomous employee has been seen as a panacea that makes the organisation of working time more flexible and the regulation relevant to practical needs. However, according to the case law of the European Court of Justice, the scope of Article 17(1) is very narrow. The article examines the concept of the autonomous employee, the nature and organisation of autonomous work, mainly based on EU law, as well as the Finnish Working Hours Act and amendments to the Estonian Sports Act, both of which entered into force in 2020.
      Citation: European Labour Law Journal
      PubDate: 2021-02-08T09:28:41Z
      DOI: 10.1177/2031952521990854
  • Editorial
    • Authors: Bernd Waas
      Pages: 349 - 350
      Abstract: European Labour Law Journal, Volume 11, Issue 4, Page 349-350, December 2020.

      Citation: European Labour Law Journal
      PubDate: 2020-10-01T11:50:58Z
      DOI: 10.1177/2031952520953223
      Issue No: Vol. 11, No. 4 (2020)
  • Processing employees’ personal data during the Covid-19 pandemic
    • Authors: Seili Suder
      Abstract: European Labour Law Journal, Ahead of Print.
      While needing to ensure the health and safety of their employees during the Covid-19 pandemic, employers face many burning data protection questions, including under what conditions they can process employees’ personal data (in particular health data) and whether gathering personal data concerning employees’ medical history, trips and contacts with infected persons, is allowed. This article focuses on issues that are problematic, based on the analysis of guidance issued by the European Data Protection Board, as well as national data protection authorities and practitioners from 20 countries in response to these concerns. The first section of the article analyses concepts of personal data and health data in the context of Covid-19. Then the article proceeds with exploring what possible legal bases employers can use to process employees’ personal data in general, and health data in particular, under the General Data Protection Regulation when applying different measures to combat Covid-19. In the latter part of the article two practical questions raised by employers – concerning the checking of employees’ body temperatures and informing them of possible infection – are discussed. The analysis indicates that national data protection authorities seem to look for a reasonable and pragmatic approach regarding compliance with the GDPR in light of the Covid-19 emergency. However, their guidance differs in several areas and the views in between nation states are not always aligned. A more specific, clear and uniform pan-European vision concerning the processing of employees’ data in times of emergency is needed to better protect employees and limit the spread of the virus.
      Citation: European Labour Law Journal
      PubDate: 2020-12-16T10:11:55Z
      DOI: 10.1177/2031952520978994
  • The EU Whistleblower Directive and its Transposition: Part 2
    • Authors: Simon Gerdemann, Ninon Colneric
      Abstract: European Labour Law Journal, Ahead of Print.
      The Whistleblower Directive of 2019 is by far the European Union’s most important piece of whistleblowing legislation to date, covering a remarkably broad range of regulatory fields and subjects. After Part 1 of this two-part article series, which mostly focused on the Directive’s scope and general conditions for whistleblower protection, Part 2 will analyse its provisions on public disclosures and the various measures for protection and support that Member States are required to implement. Following this discussion, the article will then turn to some of the most pressing legislative questions each Member State will have to answer before the deadline for transposition passes on 17 December 2021.
      Citation: European Labour Law Journal
      PubDate: 2020-12-07T10:22:43Z
      DOI: 10.1177/2031952520969096
  • The EU Whistleblower Directive and its Transposition: Part 1
    • Authors: Simon Gerdemann, Ninon Colneric
      Abstract: European Labour Law Journal, Ahead of Print.
      On 16 December 2019, Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law entered into force (hereinafter: Whistleblower Directive; WBD). Based on a Commission proposal of 23 April 2018 and accompanied by an intensive policy debate, the final version of the Directive represents the most far-reaching piece of European Union legislation in the field of whistleblowing law to date, both in terms of depth and scope of regulation. The Member States of the European Union are now obliged to transpose the Directive’s provisions essentially by 17 December 2021. For most Member States, this will mark the first time they will adopt a comprehensive whistleblowing law. Hence, the transposition of the WBD will bring with it various challenges, but also multiple opportunities to improve the current legal framework and its practical implications, both of which are discussed in this two-part article series.  Part 1 of the series will first discuss the Directive’s background and the main regulatory elements, followed by an in-depth analysis of its material and personal scope as well as the general conditions for whistleblower protection.
      Citation: European Labour Law Journal
      PubDate: 2020-12-07T10:21:43Z
      DOI: 10.1177/2031952520969093
  • The Labyrinth of Employment and Social Rights in the EU Intra-Corporate
           Transfer Directive
    • Authors: Herwig Verschueren
      Abstract: European Labour Law Journal, Ahead of Print.
      Directive 2014/66/EU on Intra-Corporate Transfer regulates the temporary secondment of key personnel and trainees from third countries to the Member States of the EU. It is part of the EU external labour migration policy and aims at facilitating this policy by setting up harmonised conditions for admission, residence and work of these migrants, including the right to move and work in another Member State. This article analyses the role and meaning of the provisions in this Directive relating to the employment and social security rights of intra-corporate transferees. They are the result of cumbersome negotiations and the compromises that were reached are ambiguously and inconsistently formulated. First, this article will highlight the relevance of the worker’s employment position for determining the scope of this Directive. Next, it will analyse the role of employment and social security rights in the implementation of the Directive by the Member States. These rights are relevant as criteria for admission, as grounds for rejection of an application, as grounds for withdrawal or non-renewal of an ICT permit and as conditions for short-term and long-term mobility within the EU. Subsequently, this article will scrutinise, in detail, the provisions of Article 18 of the Directive which guarantee equal treatment with the nationals of the host State in respect of employment and social security rights. Special attention will be paid to the interrelationship of this Directive with other EU legal instruments such as the Posting of Workers Directive, the Rome I Regulation and social security Regulation 883/2004. It concludes that the complicated and contradictorily worded provisions on employment and social security rights in this Directive reflect the ambiguity in the perception of the status of this type of migrant worker coming from a third country: are they to be considered as temporary workers or do they really participate in the labour market of the host Member States'
      Citation: European Labour Law Journal
      PubDate: 2020-10-27T10:52:15Z
      DOI: 10.1177/2031952520967362
  • Miguel De la Corte-Rodriguez: EU Law on Maternity and Other Child-Related
           Leaves. Impact on Gender Equality
    • Authors: Dr. Susanne Burri
      Abstract: European Labour Law Journal, Ahead of Print.

      Citation: European Labour Law Journal
      PubDate: 2020-10-23T10:11:19Z
      DOI: 10.1177/2031952520967676
  • An analysis of the EU Seasonal Workers Directive in the light of two
           similar regimes: Three dimensions of regulated inequality
    • Authors: Fotis Bregiannis
      Abstract: European Labour Law Journal, Ahead of Print.
      This article analyses three cumulative situations of inequality suffered by seasonal low-skilled migrant workers in Europe: i) reinforced inequality of bargaining power before the employer, ii) legal inequality between them and the local workforce, and iii) legal inequality between them and high-skilled migrant employees. In this regard, the prioritisation of the needs of national economies rather than a rights-based approach is promoted by the legislators. The EU Seasonal Workers Directive (SWD) is here compared to two Temporary Migration Programmes (TMPs) regulating similar migrant mobility. One of them has been in force for decades in Canada and the other entered more recently into force in New Zealand. It is shown that, despite claiming novelty, the SWD follows the same basic principles of structured and regulated inequality existing in these schemes.
      Citation: European Labour Law Journal
      PubDate: 2020-10-21T11:00:18Z
      DOI: 10.1177/2031952520966626
  • EU work-family policies revisited: Finally challenging caring roles'
    • Authors: Michelle Weldon-Johns
      Abstract: European Labour Law Journal, Ahead of Print.
      In 2013 Weldon-Johns used the work-family typology classification model (WFTCM) to analyse the development of EU work-family policies. That examination showed that EU work-family legislation continued to focus on maternal care and was underpinned by the extended motherhood typology. In 2019, the Work-Life Balance for Parents and Carers Directive 2019/1158 was passed, implementing key changes to the EU framework. This article takes this as an opportunity to reflect on the current EU approach. In doing so, it revisits the WFTCM and expands the ideal types to include the shared parental roles typology and redefine the family typology. This analysis shows that while some advances have been made, gendered assumptions surrounding care remain, as does the presumption in favour of childcare. Instead of the Directive fulfilling its potential to challenge caring roles, it is likely that they will continue to be reinforced, although there are some hopes for the future.
      Citation: European Labour Law Journal
      PubDate: 2020-10-19T10:34:13Z
      DOI: 10.1177/2031952520966613
  • Platform work and fixed-term employment regulation
    • Authors: Annika Rosin
      Abstract: European Labour Law Journal, Ahead of Print.
      Although platform work has been studied by many labour law researchers, mainly the unclear labour law status of platform workers as well as possible new avenues to ensure their protection have been discussed. However, platform work is similar to already-regulated atypical work arrangements and the possibilities of the application of these regulations needs to be analysed. The aim of this article is to analyse the applicability of the Fixed-Term Work Directive (1999/70/EC (FTWD)) to platform workers. The question of whether platform work can be regarded as fixed-term employment according to the FTWD is analysed, and also whether the measures to prevent the abuse of successive fixed-term contracts ensure that platform workers avoid being placed in a precarious position. In the example of four platforms (Uber, Deliveroo, TaskRabbit and Amazon Mechanical Turk), it is argued that many platform workers can be regarded as fixed-term workers for the purposes of the FTWD. The existence of a bilateral fixed-term employment relationship between the platform and the worker can be detected in the case of platforms providing transportation and food delivery services. A bilateral relationship also forms between the client and the worker in the case of platforms providing universal services. In the case of crowdwork, a tripartite temporary agency work relationship forms between the platform, the worker and the user, and the Temporary Agency Work Directive (2008/104/EC), rather than the FTWD, should be applied. The measures foreseen in the FTWD to prevent the abuse of successive fixed-term contracts effectively protect platform workers. Nevertheless, if the Member State only restricts the total period of successive contracts, their working conditions are not improved.
      Citation: European Labour Law Journal
      PubDate: 2020-09-28T11:05:57Z
      DOI: 10.1177/2031952520959335
  • The Self-employed and the EU Court of Justice: towards new social
           protection of vulnerable EU citizens'
    • Authors: Alessandro Nato
      Abstract: European Labour Law Journal, Ahead of Print.
      European citizens have been exposed to social exclusion risks due to the economic crisis and the retrenchment in the welfare state budget. Among those exposed, we find workers and self-employed workers. The Member States of Central and Northern Europe have tried to restrict the free movement of workers and the self-employed and limit access to social benefits for European citizens from Eastern Europe. On the other hand, the European institutions have tried to save the notion of the European citizen as the promoter of the integration process. Recently, the Court of Justice seems to have reprised the role of bulwark against the social exclusion of migrant European citizens in the host Member State. Adding to Florea Gusa and Tarola, the Dakneviciute case law confirms the new interpretative trend of the Court of Justice towards greater protection of the migrant self-employed worker who needs to access the welfare of the host Member State in a period of vulnerability. The recommendation is that this course continues, allowing us to overcome the restrictive jurisprudence developed in the Dano trend.
      Citation: European Labour Law Journal
      PubDate: 2020-09-10T12:37:07Z
      DOI: 10.1177/2031952520953867
  • ‘Gender inequality- now available on digital platform’: an interplay
           between gender equality and the gig economy in the European Union
    • Authors: Neha Vyas
      Abstract: European Labour Law Journal, Ahead of Print.
      This article is directed towards addressing the employment related issues encountered by female workers in the gig economy in the EU. It revolves around analysing ‘the switch’ from the traditional labour market to the platform economy. It subsequently explains, by drawing comparisons, that the issues of gender inequality in the brick and mortar world are still prevalent in world of the digital platform. In fact, new challenges have emerged which are specifically related to the gig economy. Female workers are now affected by the inherent bias of algorithms. Moreover, due to the unequivocal propagation of ‘flexibility’ which is used as a weapon to glorify the gig economy; women are even more likely to be pushed into precarious work. The other prominent issues of gender inequality like the dynamics of intersectionality, the gender pay gap and hiring policies in traditional and digital platforms are also examined. Furthermore, the existing regulatory frameworks addressing these issues are discussed with the possibility of catering to the gender inequality issues in the gig economy through policy development. The article concludes with a reflection on the need for the EU to take immediate and efficacious policy measures in respect of female workers in the gig economy.
      Citation: European Labour Law Journal
      PubDate: 2020-09-04T11:29:26Z
      DOI: 10.1177/2031952520953856
  • The Concept of ‘Worker’ in the Free Movement of Workers and the Social
    • Authors: Vincent Février
      Abstract: European Labour Law Journal, Ahead of Print.
      The Concept of worker is the gateway to the access to the protection of labour and social security law. The Court of Justice of the European Union first defined this concept in the field of the Free Movement of Workers in the Lawrie-Blum case. The scope of this article is to compare the definitions used by the Court in the fields of the free movement of workers and in the Social Policy Directives, in order to ascertain to which extent they can differ. Our in-depth analysis of the case law offers a nuanced picture. On one hand, it highlights that the Court tries to extend the application of the Lawrie-Blum formula to Directives which do not refer back to the national definitions of a worker, but that specificities remain in this area, like the emphasis on the link of subordination. On the other hand, for Directives referring to a national concept of workers, the Court began recently to state that, even if the competence of the Member States on this question must be acknowledged, it is not limitless.
      Citation: European Labour Law Journal
      PubDate: 2020-08-25T01:29:41Z
      DOI: 10.1177/2031952520945339
  • Dismissal Legislation and the Transition Payment in the Netherlands:
           Towards employment security'
    • Authors: Irmgard Borghouts - van de Pas, Harry van Drongelen
      Abstract: European Labour Law Journal, Ahead of Print.
      The purpose of protection against dismissal is to protect the employee against unjustified dismissal, which is expected to lead to stable employment relationships and job security. In recent years, the concept of employment security has entered the world of policy and science. This article aims to contribute to the field of labour law by investigating the objectives and effects of the Dutch transition payment process in relation to the relatively new notion of employment security. To do so, the ins and outs of the Dutch transition payment process are discussed. We compare and analyse the Dutch dismissal law before and after the introduction of the Work and Security Act (Wet werk en zekerheid (WWZ)) on 1 July 2015. We discuss the (unintended) employer and employee effects of dismissal law reform in the Netherlands and we analyse the objectives of the transition payment in relation to employment security. Based on a large-scale survey of redundant employees we shed light on the question of whether the transition payment is used for the purpose intended by the legislature. This article concludes by discussing the changes to the transition payment and dismissal compensation with the introduction of the new Balanced Labour Market Act (Wet arbeidsmarkt in balans (WAB)) on 1 January 2020. Although the legislature has attributed a clear formal transition function to the transition payment, the transition function is lacking from a substantive law perspective and we conclude that employment security is still in its infancy in Dutch dismissal legislation.
      Citation: European Labour Law Journal
      PubDate: 2020-08-13T08:09:08Z
      DOI: 10.1177/2031952520945338
  • Employment relations via the web with international elements: Issues and
           proposals as to the applicable law and determination of jurisdiction in
           light of EU rules and principles
    • Authors: Maria Teresa Carinci, Albert Henke
      Abstract: European Labour Law Journal, Ahead of Print.
      The article addresses the issues of which, from the EU perspective, are the applicable law and the competent courts in respect of employment contracts/relationships performed via the web and characterised by international elements. The study adopts a legal-regulatory approach, focusing, on one hand, on the issues related to the applicable law and, on the other hand, on those concerning the determination of the competent courts in respect of employment contracts/relationships performed via the web and characterised by international elements. The article outlines the possible detrimental effects on the weaker party of the contractual relationship, deriving from the application of the current connecting factors based on EU rules and regulations, in respect of the applicable law and the competent courts. The article considers only the EU legal framework, but suggests an evolutionary interpretation of EU law, aimed at preserving the anti-dumping rationale underlying the legal regime governing the applicable law and investigates the potential of collective redress mechanisms.
      Citation: European Labour Law Journal
      PubDate: 2020-05-15T10:45:37Z
      DOI: 10.1177/2031952520922248
  • A little less autonomy' The future of working time flexibility and its
    • Authors: Marta Glowacka
      Abstract: European Labour Law Journal, Ahead of Print.
      The European Court of Justice has recently issued rulings on the interpretation of the European Working Time Directive 2003/88, which appear to restrict flexible working time arrangements (especially Matzak C-518/15, Syndicat C-254/18 and CCOO C-55/18). Only a few months prior to the latter ruling of the CJEU, the Austrian legislator amended the Working Time Act in order to make it more flexible. The article argues that the measures taken by the Austrian legislator to enable more flexibility and autonomy can still be regarded as compatible with Union law. In general, the article tackles the question of possible further legislative developments in order to strike a balance between autonomy and the need for security of both parties to the employment relationship. Among other suggestions, the article introduces the concept of molecularisation of working time and examines whether work intensity should be introduced as a qualitative dimension to the concept of working time, thus deviating from the current European Working Time Directive. Finally, the article suggests security measures – often referring to Austria as a best practice example – in order to safeguard workers in view of working time flexibility.
      Citation: European Labour Law Journal
      PubDate: 2020-05-12T10:40:03Z
      DOI: 10.1177/2031952520922246
  • ‘Unchartered’ waters: fundamental rights, Brexit and the
           (re)constitution of the employment law hierarchy of norms
    • Authors: Niall O’Connor
      Abstract: European Labour Law Journal, Ahead of Print.
      The decision of the British people to leave the European Union (EU) raises foundational questions for many legal fields. The effects are especially likely to be felt within domestic employment law, which now has a strong basis in EU law. Of particular concern is the removal of the nascent EU fundamental employment rights influence over domestic legislation. Employment lawyers have long relied on fundamental rights as a means of preserving the autonomy of their subject from general private law. One manifestation of this turn to fundamental rights concepts has been the ‘constitutionalisation’ of employment rights. EU law, notably the Charter of Fundamental Rights, has become a key underpinning of this constitutionalisation process. This article considers the effects of the constitutionalisation in the United Kingdom employment sphere of some of the rights found in the Charter’s Solidarity Title, through its role in the emergence of a hierarchy of sources or ‘norms’ in the employment field. In order to address the question of the Charter’s influence on the hierarchy of sources in the employment context, three interrelated processes are examined. The article begins by exploring the ‘constitutionalisation’ process, by setting out the nature of the Charter and the effects of its employment rights on the hierarchy of sources. This is followed by a consideration of the ‘deconstitutionalisation’ process brought about by Brexit, before finally examining whether a potential ‘reconstitutionalisation’ process might be underway by looking at key terms of the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and the potential to replicate the Charter in domestic law.
      Citation: European Labour Law Journal
      PubDate: 2020-03-17T11:57:23Z
      DOI: 10.1177/2031952520911063
  • Cross-border social dialogue from the perspective of employers
    • Authors: Renate Hornung-Draus
      Abstract: European Labour Law Journal, Ahead of Print.
      Social dialogue practices across the world are deeply embedded in the different national socio-economic traditions and legal systems and therefore characterised by great heterogeneity. Cross-border social dialogue has developed mainly in the context of supra-national policy frameworks, which are compatible with the different national traditions and practices and accepted by the relevant actors. Since such frameworks have so far only developed as governmental institutions for social standard-setting, e.g. the International Labour Organisation at a global level and the European Union at a regional level, cross-border social dialogue takes place mainly as cooperation with, and consultation of, social partner organisations with a view to shaping social policy. The central element of social dialogue in the national context - collective bargaining on wages and working conditions - has not been successfully elevated to the cross-national level, because the heterogeneity of national settings has not allowed for the creation of a suitable and universally accepted supra-national framework. Given the increasing importance of social policy at the transnational and global levels and the potential of cross-border social dialogue to improve its quality and acceptance in practice, representative social partner organisations should be given an institutionalised role in all the relevant organisations well beyond the ILO or the EU.
      Citation: European Labour Law Journal
      PubDate: 2020-02-25T12:46:00Z
      DOI: 10.1177/2031952520908440
  • Are social ‘Rights’ rights'
    • Authors: Catherine Barnard
      First page: 351
      Abstract: European Labour Law Journal, Ahead of Print.
      The Charter draws a distinction between rights and principles. Article 51(1) of the Charter says that rights must be ‘respected’ whereas principles must merely be ‘observed’. The question is how to tell whether a provision in the Charter contains a right or a principle and what implication this has for social rights – which in a number of national Constitutions are traditionally seen as principles, not rights, and thus not directly enforceable. However, for EU citizens this is not satisfactory; why is something described as a right in fact not a right' In this article I wish to argue that while it was originally intended that social rights should in fact be principles, the Court is beginning to adopt a more nuanced approach to this question.
      Citation: European Labour Law Journal
      PubDate: 2020-02-12T04:45:35Z
      DOI: 10.1177/2031952520905382
  • Balancing social and economic fundamental rights in the EU legal order
    • Authors: Sacha Garben
      First page: 364
      Abstract: European Labour Law Journal, Ahead of Print.
      The EU legal order recognises at its highest level both fundamental social rights/freedoms and economic rights/freedoms. As is well-known, it is in the cases where these have had to be balanced against one another, that profound legal and political difficulties have appeared over the years, feeding into a more general concern about an asymmetry between social and economic values and outcomes in the European integration process. While we need to be careful not to overstate the extent of conflict, it deserves to be reiterated that there remain a number of important ‘social sore spots’ that despite sustained academic and political critique, and despite some adjustments in the Court’s approach, continue to emerge and challenge the EU’s social legitimacy. The EU’s approach towards the right to strike and bargain collectively in relation to the internal market provisions on the free provision of services and establishment, which has not only met with criticism internally but has also been considered at odds with international social rights, remains problematic in spite of the CJEU’s more recent ‘conciliatory’ case law. Moreover, relatively recent (r)evolutions in the case law as regards the freedom to conduct a business have raised important new tensions. In accordance with its brief, this article maps these frictions and, more importantly, considers how the adjudication of these rights could be conducted differently. In this regard, it argues that the most appropriate alternative approach is one not directed at procuring more ‘social’ outcomes as such, but instead one that provides a more constitutionally and democratically legitimate framework of adjudication of fundamental rights generally, and social and economic rights specifically. Indeed, while this paper therefore shares the fundamental ambition of some other thought-provoking approaches proposed recently to provide the European judiciary with an alternative framework for the balancing of social and economic rights, the proposal of this paper is different in the importance it attaches to democracy. Democracy shall be the guiding concern in the proposed framework, not only by ensuring that the extent to which these rights are enforced against the national and European legislative process remains limited to what is necessary, but also in providing the dominant telos that should inform the substantive interpretation of these rights.
      Citation: European Labour Law Journal
      PubDate: 2020-05-27T11:37:52Z
      DOI: 10.1177/2031952520927128
  • Article 47 CFR and the effective enforcement of EU labour law: Teeth for
           paper tigers'
    • Authors: Jeremias Adams-Prassl
      First page: 391
      Abstract: European Labour Law Journal, Ahead of Print.
      ‘Social rights’, the late Professor Sir Bob Hepple warned in 2007 ‘are like paper tigers, fierce in appearance but missing in tooth and claw.’ This note sets out to explore the potential of the right to an effective remedy in Article 47 of the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights (‘CFR’) in equipping the Union’s social acquis with credible remedies. Article 47 CFR is one of the most-litigated and important Articles in the Charter. At the same time, however, it has received surprisingly little attention in the context of EU employment law.Discussion is structured as follows: section one explores the rise of the principle of effectiveness, from the early case law of the Court of Justice to the Charter’s entry into force in 2009. Section two sketches the powerful potential of Article 47 CFR, highlighting its utility both in tackling domestic obstacles to effective enforcement, and expanding the horizontal applicability of EU employment law. Section three briefly highlights some of the limitations litigants might encounter, including a general emphasis on broad regulatory discretion for Member States, and the difficult of crafting (positive) duties out of (negative) restraints. A brief concluding section turns to EU law more broadly, as well as the European Convention of Human Rights, for inspirations guiding the potential future development of Article 47 CFR.
      Citation: European Labour Law Journal
      PubDate: 2020-02-20T02:00:14Z
      DOI: 10.1177/2031952520905383
  • Effective enforcement of EU labour law: A comparative example
    • Authors: Michael Gotthardt
      First page: 403
      Abstract: European Labour Law Journal, Ahead of Print.
      The article looks at the outcome of the two legal proceedings in the Schüth and IR cases. In both cases employees of the Catholic Church – a choirmaster and organist in a Catholic parish and a trained physician working as Head of the Internal Medicine Department of a Catholic hospital - were dismissed because of the violation of the Basic Regulations on Employment Relationships in the Service of the Church. In the Schüth case Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which protects the right to private and family life, had been violated. In the IR case the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the Directive establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation were applicable. The dismissal in IR was held to be unequal treatment in employment. But the outcome of both cases was very different. We find that Union law and in particular Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union makes all the difference. In the Schüth case, the employment relationship was terminated and the claimant’s only consolation was a claim for damages from the State. In the IR case, on the other hand, the termination was declared invalid and the employment relationship continued, i.e. the head physician did not lose his job. The comparison of the cases demonstrates that European law, backed by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, has not only permeated procedural law, it has also led to an increase in judicial reviews of substantive law which in the application of Union law is a far cry from a mere plausibility review.
      Citation: European Labour Law Journal
      PubDate: 2020-03-04T10:18:45Z
      DOI: 10.1177/2031952520905385
School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Heriot-Watt University
Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK
Tel: +00 44 (0)131 4513762

Your IP address:
Home (Search)
About JournalTOCs
News (blog, publications)
JournalTOCs on Twitter   JournalTOCs on Facebook

JournalTOCs © 2009-