Documents Sanders, Astrid 3 results

"This contribution explores a lesser discussed provision in the new Platform Work Directive (PWD): Article 3 on ‘intermediaries'. Article 3 is possibly the most ambiguous provision in the Directive, for three reasons: the unusual drafting history of Article 3, the wording of Article 3 itself, and the amount of flexibility left to Member States to interpret Article 3 as they choose. Ultimately, this means that Article 3 will likely have very divergent impact in practice. Article 3 provides that individuals providing work for an intermediary should enjoy the same level of protection ‘pursuant to the Directive' as those contracting directly with digital labour platforms. There is also reference to joint and several liability, ‘where appropriate'. At the very least under Article 3, the employment presumption in Article 5 should also apply to intermediaries and the provisions on algorithmic management should apply directly to those in a subcontracting chain. The contribution details the unusual drafting history of Article 3, then contrasts Article 3's fit with other EU provisions on ‘subcontracting', before discussing whether it was intended as, or might be interpreted as, alternatively a provision on joint liability or on joint employment. The final section provides a brief reflection on the concept of the employer, in light of the PWD."
This work is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

"Many labour law scholars in the UK are disillusioned with recent judicial decisions by the House of Lords and Supreme Court on the contract of employment. The argument made in this article is that, although there are good reasons for disillusionment with the Johnson v Unisys progeny, there have nevertheless been potentially some very positive developments for employees in recent decisions. On procedural fairness, the High Court has read in principles of ‘natural justice' to the employment contract, whereas both High Court and Court of Appeal decisions seem to see courts intervening, at least in some areas, in the employment relation also on the grounds of substantive fairness. It is suggested here that these recent cases are evidence of a nascent duty of ‘fairness' in the contract of employment, and the case is made for explicit recognition of, and development of, this duty. A practical application is provided, to finish, with the topical phenomenon of so-called ‘zero hours contracts'. "