Skip to main content
  • 492 Accesses

Abstract

The collaborative economy not only blurs the distinction between a consumer and a professional but also the most classical dichotomy between an employer and an employee, hence rarefying the impact of labour law over workers’ protection. Indeed, if one works in his/her own spare time, with no subordination whatsoever, on a casual or an on-demand basis, how can this pattern possibly fit within the frame of genuine employment relations? Furthermore, can online platforms be assimilated to a classical employer exercising a typical command and control chain over their employees? This Chapter seeks to answer these questions, starting from the premise that non-standard work is more and more widespread, while, in a collaborative economy scenario, the problem of false self-employment is more and more acute. Thus, it is argued that, by using rate-and-review (R&R) mechanisms, collaborative platforms have succeeded in externalizing command and control to users. Looking at European Union (EU) labour law, the impact of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter) is first discussed, then the potential applicability of the Working Time Directive and of the Atypical Workers Directives is tested. An overview of national experiences in the UK, France and Italy is presented to demonstrate that domestic courts have a different understanding of the conditions pointing to genuine employment relations. Finally, the recently adopted European Social Pillar (ESP) is discussed to ascertain whether it can bring clarity to the broad domain of employment in the collaborative economy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Case C-292/89, The Queen v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex parte Gustaff Desiderius Antonissen, judgment of 26 February 1991.

  2. 2.

    Hatzopoulos (2013), pp. 459–501; Hatzopoulos and Do (2006), pp. 923–991.

  3. 3.

    Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems OJ L 166, 30.4.2004, pp. 1–123.

  4. 4.

    Sundarajan (2016).

  5. 5.

    La Hovary (2014), pp. 391–412.

  6. 6.

    Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) (2016).

  7. 7.

    Schoukens and Barrio (2017), pp. 306–332.

  8. 8.

    Aloisi (2016), pp. 653–690; De Stefano (2016a), pp. 461–470; De Stefano (2016b), pp. 471–503; Donini (2016), pp. 164–177; Donini (2015), pp. 433–458; Lobel (2017), pp. 51–73; Todolì-Signes (2017), pp. 241–268.

  9. 9.

    See Sundarajan (2016).

  10. 10.

    Hatzopoulos (2018), pp. 182–183.

  11. 11.

    For a detailed overview, see Barnard (2012).

  12. 12.

    Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions. A European Agenda for the Collaborative Economy, COM(2016) 356 final.

  13. 13.

    Ewing (2013), pp. 145–166.

  14. 14.

    Topo (2018), pp. 453–475.

  15. 15.

    Case 66/85, Deborah Lawrie-Blum and Land Baden-Württemberg, judgment of 3 July 1986.

  16. 16.

    Case 66/85, Deborah Lawrie-Blum and Land Baden-Württemberg, paragraph 16.

  17. 17.

    Thornquist (2015), pp. 411–430.

  18. 18.

    Case C-256/01, Debra Allonby v Accrington & Rossendale College, Education Lecturing Services, trading as Protocol Professional and Secretary of State for Education and Employment, judgment of 13 January 2004.

  19. 19.

    Debra Allonby v Accrington & Rossendale College, Education Lecturing Services, trading as Protocol Professional and Secretary of State for Education and Employment., paragraph 68.

  20. 20.

    Case C-413/13, FNV Kunsten Informatie en Media v Staat der Nederlanden, judgment of 4 December 2014.

  21. 21.

    Case C-413/13, FNV Kunsten Informatie en Media v Staat der Nederlanden, paragraph 31.

  22. 22.

    Case C-413/13, FNV Kunsten Informatie en Media v Staat der Nederlanden, paragraph 36.

  23. 23.

    Case C-232/09, Dita Danosa v LKB Līzings SIA, judgment of 11 November 2010.

  24. 24.

    Case C-232/09, Dita Danosa v LKB Līzings SIA, paragraph 40.

  25. 25.

    Daskalova (2018), pp. 461–508; Grosheide and Barenberg (2016), pp. 193–236.

  26. 26.

    Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services, COM(2018) 238 final.

  27. 27.

    Das Acevedo (2015).

  28. 28.

    Cauffman (2016), pp. 235–243; Smorto (2015), pp. 245–277.

  29. 29.

    Case C-434/15, Asociación Profesional Elite Taxi v Uber Systems Spain, SL, opinion of Advocate General Szpunar of 11 May 2017.

  30. 30.

    Case C-434/15, Asociación Profesional Elite Taxi v Uber Systems Spain, SL, opinion of Advocate General Szpunar, paragraph 43.

  31. 31.

    De Franceschi (2018), pp. 1–4; Schepisi (2017), pp. 1–17; Simon (2017), pp. 521–532.

  32. 32.

    Case C-390/18, AIRBNB Ireland.

  33. 33.

    Case C-390/18, Airbnb Ireland, opinion of Advocate General Szpunar of 30 April 2019.

  34. 34.

    Case C-434/15, Asociación Profesional Elite Taxi v Uber Systems Spain, SL, judgment of 20 December 2017, paragraph 39.

  35. 35.

    For an analysis devoted to labour law in the Elite Taxi case, see Delfino (2018), pp. 346–353.

  36. 36.

    See, in general, Giubboni (2018b), pp. 7–20.

  37. 37.

    Case C-176/12, Association de médiation sociale v Union locale des syndicats CGT and Others, judgment of 15 January 2014.

  38. 38.

    Case C-414/16, Vera Egenberger v Evangelisches Werk für Diakonie und Entwicklung e.V., judgment of 17 April 2018; Case C-68/17, IR v JQ, judgment of 11 September 2018; Case C-193/17, Cresco Investigation GmbH v Markus Achatzi, judgment of 22 January 2019.

  39. 39.

    Case C-684/16, Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften eV v Tetsuji Shimizu, judgment of 6 November 2018.

  40. 40.

    Joined cases C-569/16 and C-570/16, Stadt Wuppertal v Maria Elisabeth Bauer and Volker Willmeroth v Martina Broßonn, judgment of 6 November 2018.

  41. 41.

    Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften eV v Tetsuji Shimizu, paragraph 69; Stadt Wuppertal v Maria Elisabeth Bauer and Volker Willmeroth v Martina Broßonn, paragraph 80.

  42. 42.

    Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften eV v Tetsuji Shimizu, paragraph 79; Stadt Wuppertal v Maria Elisabeth Bauer and Volker Willmeroth v Martina Broßonn, paragraph 90.

  43. 43.

    Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time OJ L 299, 18.11.2003, pp. 9–19.

  44. 44.

    Nowak (2018), pp. 118–129.

  45. 45.

    Case C-266/14, Federación de Servicios Privados del sindicato Comisiones obreras (CC.OO.) v Tyco Integrated Security SL, Tyco Integrated Fire & Security Corporation Servicios SA, judgment of 10 September 2015.

  46. 46.

    Case C-342/12, Worten – Equipamentos para o Lar SA v Autoridade para as Condições de Trabalho (ACT), judgment of 30 May 2013.

  47. 47.

    Interpretative communication on Directive 2033/88/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, C(2017) 2601.

  48. 48.

    Interpretative communication, p. 45.

  49. 49.

    For a comprehensive discussion on this topic, Peers (2013), pp. 30–56; Bell (2012), pp. 31–48.

  50. 50.

    Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC - Annex: Framework agreement on part-time work OJ L 14, 20.1.1998, pp. 9–14.

  51. 51.

    Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP OJ L 175, 10.7.1999, pp. 43–48.

  52. 52.

    Directive 2008/104/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on temporary agency work OJ L 327, 5.12.2008, pp. 9–14.

  53. 53.

    Case C-98/15, María Begoña Espadas Recio v ServicioPúblico de Empleo Estatal (SPEE), judgment of 9 November 2017.

  54. 54.

    Case C-306/27, Ruben Andersen v Kommunernes Landsforening, judgment of 18 December 2008.

  55. 55.

    Case C-96/17, Gardenia Vernaza Ayovi v Consorci Sanitari de Terrassa, judgment of 25 July 2018.

  56. 56.

    Cases from the US have been reported in Hatzopoulos (2018), pp. 159–161.

  57. 57.

    Employment Appeal Tribunal (England and Wales), n. UKEAT/0056/17/DA—Eady QC Est—Uber B.V., Uber London LTD, Uber Britannia LTD c. Aslam Y., Farrar J., Dawson R. et al., judgment of 10 November 2017, paragraph 100. This judgment upholds Central London Employment Tribunal 2202551/2015 Aslam, Farrar et al., judgment of 28 October 2016. See also Donini (2018b), pp. 63–71.

  58. 58.

    Employment Appeal Tribunal (England and Wales), n. UKEAT/0056/17/DA—Eady QC Est—Uber B.V., Uber London LTD, Uber Britannia LTD c. Aslam Y., Farrar J., Dawson R. et al., judgment of 10 november 2017, paragraph 107.

  59. 59.

    Case n. 4764/2017, judgment n. 778/2018, published on 7 may 2018.

  60. 60.

    Case n. 438/2018, judgment n. 26/2019, published on 4 February 2019.

  61. 61.

    Case n. 4764/2017, judgment n. 778/2018, p. 3.

  62. 62.

    Decreto legislativo 81/2015, Disciplina organica dei contratti di lavoro e revisione della normativa in tema di mansioni, GU n. 144 24 June 2015.

  63. 63.

    Lazzari (2018), pp. 455–487.

  64. 64.

    Biasi (2018), pp. 1–16; Donini (2018a), pp. 823–841; Tullini (2018), pp. 1–9.

  65. 65.

    Treu (2017), pp. 367–405.

  66. 66.

    Legislative proposal 3564/2016, Disciplina delle piattaforme digitali per la condivisione di beni e servizi e disposizioni per la promozione dell’economia della condivisione.

  67. 67.

    See https://bologna.repubblica.it/cronaca/2018/05/25/news/bologna_carta_rider-197310179/ (accessed 29 June 2019).

  68. 68.

    Cour d’appel de Paris, Pôle 6 – Chambre 22 novembre 2017, n. 16/12875. Donini (2018b), pp. 63–71.

  69. 69.

    Cour d’appel de Paris, Pôle 6 – Chambre 22 novembre 2017, n. 16/12875, motifs du litige, no paragraph.

  70. 70.

    Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions. Establishing a European Pillar of Social Rights, COM(2017) 250 final.

  71. 71.

    Establishing a European Pillar of Social Rights, p. 1.

  72. 72.

    Establishing a European Pillar of Social Rights, p. 4.

  73. 73.

    Establishing a European Pillar of Social Rights, p. 7.

  74. 74.

    Giubboni (2018a), pp. 172–190; Prassl (2015), pp. 189–209.

  75. 75.

    Laagland (2018), pp. 50–72.

  76. 76.

    Van Cleynenbreugel (2017), pp. 697–722.

  77. 77.

    Aranguiz and Bednarowicz (2018), pp. 329–345; Codagnone et al. (2016), pp. 1–96; Forde et al. (2017), pp. 1–125; Voza (2018), pp. 657–685.

  78. 78.

    Treu (2017), pp. 367–405.

  79. 79.

    Kullmann (2018), pp. 1–22.

  80. 80.

    It has also been stressed that collaborative platforms or, rather, service providers are discriminating against some specific groups, see Leong and Belzer (2017), pp. 1271–1322.

  81. 81.

    Domurath (2018), pp. 565–581.

  82. 82.

    NewRightsNow—Renforcer les droits des travailleurs “ubérisés”. Commission decision (2019)2312 final.

  83. 83.

    Smorto (2017), pp. 119–168.

References

  • Aloisi A (2016) Commoditized workers: case study research on labor law issues arising from a set of ‘on-demand/gig economy’ platforms. Comp Labor Law Policy J 37(3):653–690

    Google Scholar 

  • Aranguiz A, Bednarowicz B (2018) Adapt or perish: recent developments on social protection in the EU under a gig deal of pressure. Eur Labour Law J 9(4):329–345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnard C (2012) EU employment law, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell M (2012) Between flexicurity and fundamental social rights: the EU directives on atypical work. Eur Law Rev 37(1):31–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Biasi M (2018) L’inquadramento giuridico dei riders alla prova della giurisprudenza. Lavoro, diritti, Europa 2(2):1–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Cauffman C (2016) The Commission’s European agenda for the collaborative economy – (too) platform and service provider friendly? J Eur Consum Market Law 5(6):235–243

    Google Scholar 

  • Codagnone C, Abadie F, Biagi F (2016) The future of work in the ‘sharing economy’. Market efficiency and equitable opportunities or unfair precarisation? JRC Science for Policy Report EUR27913, pp 1–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Das Acevedo D (2015) Regulating employment relations in the sharing economy. Empl Rights Employ Policy J 20(1):1–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Daskalova V (2018) Regulating the new self-employed in the Uber economy: what role for EU competition law? German Law J 19(3):461–508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Franceschi A (2018) Uber Spain and the ‘identity crisis’ of online platforms. J Eur Consum Market Law 7(1):1–4

    Google Scholar 

  • De Stefano V (2016a) Crowdsourcing, the gig economy and the law. Comp Labor Law Policy J 37(2):461–470

    Google Scholar 

  • De Stefano V (2016b) The rise of the ‘just-in-time workforce’: on-demand work, crowdwork, and labor protection in the ‘gig economy. Comp Labor Law Policy J 36(2):471–503

    Google Scholar 

  • Delfino M (2018) Work in the age of collaborative platforms between innovation and tradition. Eur Labour Law J 9(4):346–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Domurath I (2018) Platforms as contract parties: Uber and beyond. Maastricht J Eur Comp Law 25(5):565–581

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donini A (2015) Mercato del lavoro sul web: regole e opportunità. Diritto delle relazioni industriali 25(2):433–458

    Google Scholar 

  • Donini A (2016) Il lavoro su piattaforma digitale “prende forma” tra autonomia e subordinazione. Nuove regole per nuovi lavori? Diritto delle relazioni industriali 36(1):164–177

    Google Scholar 

  • Donini A (2018a) Lavoro agile e su piattaforma digitale tra autonomia e subordinazione. Variazioni su temi di diritto del lavoro 3(3):823–841

    Google Scholar 

  • Donini A (2018b) La libertà del lavoro sulle piattaforme digitali. Rivista italiana di diritto del lavoro 36(2):63–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Ewing KD (2013) Myth and reality of the right to strike as a ‘fundamental labour right’. Int J Comp Labour Law Indus Relat 2013(2):145–166

    Google Scholar 

  • Forde C, Stuart M, Joice S, Oliver L, Valizade D, Alberti G, Hardy K, Trappmann V, Umney C, Carson C (2017) The social protection of workers in the platform economy. IP/A/EMPL/2016-11 PE614.184, pp 1–125

    Google Scholar 

  • Giubboni S (2018a) Freedom to conduct a business and labour law. Eur Constit Law Rev 14(1):172–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giubboni S (2018b) The rise and fall of EU labour law. Eur Law J 24(1):7–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grosheide E, Barenberg M (2016) Minimum fees for the self-employed: a European response to the ‘uber-ized’ economy? Columbia J Eur Law 22(2):193–236

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatzopoulos V (2013) The Court’s approach to services (2006–2012): from case law to case load? Common Market Law Rev 50(2):459–501

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatzopoulos V (2018) The collaborative economy and EU law. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatzopoulos V, Do TH (2006) The case law of the ECJ concerning the free provision of services: 2000-2005. Common Market Law Rev 43(4):923–991

    Google Scholar 

  • Kullmann M (2018) Platform work, algorithmic decision-making and EU gender equality law. Int J Comp Labour Indus Relat 34(1):1–22

    Google Scholar 

  • La Hovary C (2014) The informal economy and the ILO: a legal perspective. Int J Comp Labour Indus Relat 30(4):391–412

    Google Scholar 

  • Laagland F (2018) Member States’ sovereignty in the socio-economic field: fact or fiction? The clash between the European business freedoms and the national level of workers’ protection. Eur Labour Law J 9(1):50–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazzari C (2018) Gig economy e tutela della salute e sicurezza sul lavoro. Prime considerazioni a partire dal caso Foodora. Rivista del diritto della sicurezza sociale 18(3):455–487

    Google Scholar 

  • Leong N, Belzer A (2017) The new public accommodations: race discrimination in the platform economy. Georgetown Law J 105:1271–1322

    Google Scholar 

  • Lobel O (2017) The gig economy & the future of employment and labor law. Univ San Francisco Law Rev. 5(1):51–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowak T (2018) The turbulent life of the working time directive. Maastricht J Eur Comp Law 25(1):118–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Organizsation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) (2016) New forms of work in the digital economy. OECD digital economy papers no. 260

    Google Scholar 

  • Peers S (2013) Equal treatment of atypical workers: a new frontier of EU law? Yearb Eur Law 32(1):30–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prassl J (2015) Business freedoms and employment rights in the European Union. Camb Yearb Eur Legal Stud 17(1):189–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schepisi C (2017) Piattaforme digitali e caso Uber dinanzi alla Corte di giustizia: servizio di trasporto urbano o servizio della società dell’informazione? Osservatorio europeo – Diritto dell’Unione europea, pp 1–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoukens P, Barrio A (2017) The changing concept of work: when does typical work became atypical? Eur Labour Law J 8(4):306–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon P (2017) Uber saisi par le droit du marché intérieur. Revue des affaires europeennes 28(3):521–532

    Google Scholar 

  • Smorto G (2015) Verso la disciplina giuridica della sharing economy. Mercato Concorrenza Regole 16(2):245–277

    Google Scholar 

  • Smorto G (2017) Economia della condivisione e antropologia dello scambio. Diritto pubblico comparato ed europeo 18(1):119–168

    Google Scholar 

  • Sundarajan A (2016) The sharing economy: the end of employment and the rise of crowd-based capitalism. MIT Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornquist A (2015) False self-employment and other precarious forms of employment in the ‘grey area’ of the labour market. Int J Comp Labour Law Indus Relat 31(4):411–430

    Google Scholar 

  • Todolì-Signes A (2017) The end of the subordinate worker? The on-demand economy, the gig economy, and the need for protection for crowdworkers. Int J Comp Labour Law Indus Relat 33(2):241–268

    Google Scholar 

  • Topo A (2018) Automatic management’, reputazione del lavoratore e tutela della riservatezza. Lavoro e diritto 32(3):453–475

    Google Scholar 

  • Treu T (2017) Rimedi, tutele e fattispecie: riflessioni a partire dai lavori della gig economy. Lavoro e diritto 31(3–4):367–405

    Google Scholar 

  • Tullini P (2018) Prime riflessioni dopo la sentenza di Torino sul caso Foodora. Lavoro, diritti, Europa 2(1):1–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Cleynenbreugel P (2017) Le droit de l’Union européenne face à l’économie collaborative. Revue Trimestrielle de Droit Européen 12(4):697–722

    Google Scholar 

  • Voza R (2018) Nuove sfide per il welfare: la tutela del lavoro nella gig economy. Rivista del diritto della sicurezza sociale 18(4):657–685

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Inglese, M. (2019). Labour Law. In: Regulating the Collaborative Economy in the European Union Digital Single Market. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30040-1_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30040-1_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-30039-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-30040-1

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics