Documents Cefaliello, Aude 14 results

"This reports has two goals. Firstly, it seeks to establish an overview of proceedings, whether they be actions for failure to fulfil obligations, actions for annulment, or references for a preliminary ruling – before the Court of Justice of the European Union associated with occupational health and safety directives between 1989 and 2022. A total of 173 decisions were selected and analysed. The variables taken into consideration were: the Member States against which the proceeding were brought, the year of the decision, the OSH directive examined and the type of proceedings. Secondly, by spotlighting certain patterns, it will be possible in future to build a litigation strategy for health and safety both by continuing to make references for a preliminary ruling to the Court and by turning decisions already made by the Court to account at national level."

"Les employeurs et les investisseurs présentent souvent la robotique et l'intelligence artificielle comme des outils pour remédier aux pénuries de main d'oeuvre, alléger la charge de travail et améliorer la qualité des emplois. Dans les faits cependant, l'adoption de ces nouvelles technologies sur le lieu de travail comporte de nombreux risques ; heureusement, les représentants des travailleurs peuvent interpréter certaines dispositions juridiques de manière stratégique pour protéger les travailleurs des dangers les plus graves."

"Key points
• Psychosocial risks (PSR) are increasingly impacting all industries in every Member States. The effects of psychosocial risks can be longlasting and have both physical and psychological impacts on workers' lives (such as depression, musculoskeletal disorders or burnout).
• Employers are under and obligation to protect workers' safety and health in all aspects of work. Member States do not, however, share legally binding common standards and principles regarding psychosocial risks. This results in unequal legal protection for workers.
• National examples of regulation of psychosocial risks show that effective legislation is possible. These examples can be a source of inspiration to (re)start the discussion to adopt a specific directive on psychosocial risks, which would establish common rules aimed at improving workers' safety and health and encouraging organisational prevention of these growing risks."

"In April 2021, the European Commission published its first draft of the Proposal for a Regulation on Artificial Intelligence. Since AI in the work context has increasingly become important in organising work and managing workers, the AI Act will undoubtedly have an impact on EU and national labour law systems. One aim of the proposal is to guarantee ‘consistency with existing Union legislation applicable to sectors where high-risk Artificial Intelligence systems are already used or likely to be used in the near future', which includes the EU social acquis. It could be argued that ensuring true consistency with EU law means guaranteeing that the way the AI Act will be implemented and applied will still allow the other pieces of EU labour law to fulfil their purpose. It is undeniable that the implementation of the AI Act will overlap with various fields of EU law, especially considering the increasing use of AI technology at work. Thus, this article seeks to identify ways to refine the AI Act, insofar as it impacts work. The contribution discusses the current AI Act as proposed in April 2021, thereby focusing on two particular areas, EU non-discrimination law and EU law on occupational health and safety (OSH), as these two areas are, more or less explicitly, addressed as legal fields in the AI Act. The article starts with taking the perspective of EU labour law influencing the development of AI systems used in the employment context. We argue that providers should respect EU labour law throughout the development of the AI system (section 2). Then, the areas where EU labour law and the AI overlap are identified, thereby viewing it from an employer's perspective, i.e., the user of the AI system (section 3). Using two specific EU labour law areas (the right not to be discriminated against and the right to healthy and safe working conditions) the article provides a first assessment of how the AI Act might influence work and the regulation thereof (section 4). Finally, the conclusion critically explores whether and to what extent AI in employment situations warrants particular attention (section 5)."

"The increasing deployment of algorithmic management in the workplace poses significant occupational safety and health risks for workers. In this article, we argue that existing and proposed EU regulatory frameworks are inadequate to address these risks, especially psychosocial risks, created or exacerbated by algorithmic management. While existing and proposed regulatory frameworks have significant implications for employers' obligations to mitigate these risks, we identify several psychosocial risks created or exacerbated by algorithmic management and show how the current and proposed regulatory frameworks fall short of adequately addressing these risks. We observe that these frameworks, based largely in the ‘safety by design' tradition, focus on the design phase of the technology life cycle. This focus does not adequately address risks that arise in the use or deployment stage of algorithmic management. There is therefore a need for a stand-alone piece of legislation at the EU level on algorithmic management. To address these shortcomings, we outline suggestions for provisions necessary for safe and healthy digitally managed work."