Suchergebnisse

Several years since first emerging in Europe, platform work continues to represent a 'social dilemma' for workers, social partners, policymakers and society as a whole. As a result of intense litigation, analysis and reporting, much is known about the contractual and working conditions in this growing labour market segment. While the European Union (EU) institutions are considering adopting a new Directive based on Art. 153 TFEU, there are a number of significant top-down and bottom-up national cases worth discussing. Workers across Europe have been reclassified by many courts; some governments have taken regulatory initiatives to address the risk of precariousness and have implemented new comprehensive legal instruments to safeguard a level playing field for both workers and platforms. This article discusses how existing and new domestic and EU labour law provisions can improve the labour conditions of platform workers. Its overarching goal is to address possible policy gaps and the implications for EU social law by exploring the lessons that can be drawn from recent policies and legal developments. Section two briefly touches upon the policymaking initiatives in France, Spain and Italy. Moreover, it presents and reviews the main outcomes of litigation at the domestic level, focusing on the pervasive role played by algorithmic management. After introducing the Pillar of Social Rights (EPSR), section three critically analyses two key achievements at the EU level: the Directive on transparent and predictable working conditions and the Recommendation on access to social protection for workers and the self-employed. Section four explores the elasticity of the triad of Directives that regulate atypical forms of employment (part-time, fixed-term and temporary agency work). It is argued that the narrow construction of the Directives' scope of application could represent an obstacle. However, an adaptive and purposive approach by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) could result in the classification of platform workers as falling within the scope of the social acquis in certain fields. Finally, section five concludes by providing concrete policy proposals focussed on cross-border issues, algorithmic transparency, the introduction of a presumption of employment status and collective bargaining.

This commentary examines case C-692/19, an order in response to a request for a preliminary ruling regarding the scope of application of working time protection, handed down by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in April 2020. A courier working for a shipping company filed a claim before a UK employment tribunal demanding reclassification as a 'worker' with access to the national legislation implementing Directive 2003/88/EC on working time. The tribunal decided to refer the question to the CJEU. At first glance, some elements of the order may give us the impression that EU working time protection does not cover workers who may find themselves in a situation of (bogus) self-employment, including those in the platform economy. However, this is not the case. The order is based on a specific set of facts that are in line with the CJEU's established jurisprudential practices on the concept of worker, according to which workers formally classified as self-employed under the contract or the national law are excluded from the scope of the Working Time Directive only if they enjoy genuine, not nominal organisational autonomy. This analysis is organised as follows. After some introductory remarks, part 2 summarises the arguments of the remitting court and reviews the business model of the delivery company. Part 3 critically discusses some passages of the order. It also examines the notion of 'worker' as shaped by the CJEU, highlights strengths and shortcomings of this interpretive attitude, and summarises the proposals to overcome the weaknesses of an under-inclusive and potentially ineffective application of EU law. After appraising the widespread practices in the platform economy and the most recent regulatory developments, part 4 demystifies the issue of organisational flexibility, which is often understood in a unidirectional way, to the advantage of business. This analysis concludes by advocating for a purposive adaption of existing legal categories, beyond the formalistic approach adopted by the referring court in this case.

Thematic Working Paper for Annual Conference of the European Centre of Expertise (ECE) in the field of labour law, employment and labour market policies 'Exploring ways to improve the working conditions of platform workers: The role of EU labour law' ; This paper is organised as follows. Aside from discussing the key lessons gleaned from previous studies on platform work, Section 2 briefly touches upon the trends and initiatives in policymaking in France and in Italy. Moreover, it presents and reviews the main outcomes of litigation at the domestic level, with a focus on the role played by algorithms. This section also assesses the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. After introducing the Pillar of Social Rights (EPSR), Section 3 critically analyses two key achievements at the EU level, namely the Directive on transparent and predictable working conditions and the Recommendation on access to social protection for workers and the self-employed. Section 4 assesses the elasticity of the triad of Directives regulating atypical employment. It is argued in this section that the narrow construction of the Directives' personal scope of application represents an obstacle. An adaptive and purposive approach of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) could, however, result in the classification of platform workers as falling within the scope of the social acquis in some fields. Finally, Section 5 concludes by offering concrete proposals. ; This publication has received financial support from the European Union Programme for Employment and Social Innovation "EaSI" (2014-2020). For further information please consult: http://ec.europa.eu/social/easi.