Adapting Labour Law to Complex Organisational Settings of the Enterprise. Why Re-Thinking the Concept of the Employer is not Enough

G. Gaudio
{"title":"Adapting Labour Law to Complex Organisational Settings of the Enterprise. Why Re-Thinking the Concept of the Employer is not Enough","authors":"G. Gaudio","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3555913","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Labour law struggles to deal with the vertical disintegration of the enterprise that questions the traditional bilateral and contractual analysis of the employment relationship and the unitary concept of the employer. Multiple employer patterns have been proposed by the Italian and English scholarship to try to sidestep the current impasse. However, these seem to be inconsistent with the existing legal framework and, in addition, it is debatable that they can be always instrumental in addressing the issues arising from the vertical disintegration of the enterprise. Nevertheless, an alternative and more nuanced analytical path can be followed. Labour law mostly takes the view that the employer is the contractual counterparty to the employee. Yet it also recognises that other entities can assume certain responsibilities of the employer in certain specific regulatory domains, where legislators recur to peculiar regulatory strategies often independent of a contractual analysis of the employment relationship. This paper argues that the law takes this step not because these other legal entities are functionally akin to employers, but precisely in spite of the differences between them and the employer form. Rather than seeking to redefine the concept of employer, a better understanding of the subject must recognise that employment law consists in a kaleidoscopic blend of different regulatory domains, characterised by a range of different purposes, the achievement of which require the adoption of different and even non-contractual normative tools. Adopting a variable geometry approach to frame the scope of labour laws would constitute a better analytical response to potentially restore the coherence and completeness of the scope of employment protective norms.","PeriodicalId":357008,"journal":{"name":"Employment Law eJournal","volume":"48 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Employment Law eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3555913","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Labour law struggles to deal with the vertical disintegration of the enterprise that questions the traditional bilateral and contractual analysis of the employment relationship and the unitary concept of the employer. Multiple employer patterns have been proposed by the Italian and English scholarship to try to sidestep the current impasse. However, these seem to be inconsistent with the existing legal framework and, in addition, it is debatable that they can be always instrumental in addressing the issues arising from the vertical disintegration of the enterprise. Nevertheless, an alternative and more nuanced analytical path can be followed. Labour law mostly takes the view that the employer is the contractual counterparty to the employee. Yet it also recognises that other entities can assume certain responsibilities of the employer in certain specific regulatory domains, where legislators recur to peculiar regulatory strategies often independent of a contractual analysis of the employment relationship. This paper argues that the law takes this step not because these other legal entities are functionally akin to employers, but precisely in spite of the differences between them and the employer form. Rather than seeking to redefine the concept of employer, a better understanding of the subject must recognise that employment law consists in a kaleidoscopic blend of different regulatory domains, characterised by a range of different purposes, the achievement of which require the adoption of different and even non-contractual normative tools. Adopting a variable geometry approach to frame the scope of labour laws would constitute a better analytical response to potentially restore the coherence and completeness of the scope of employment protective norms.
使劳动法适应企业复杂的组织环境。为什么重新思考雇主的概念是不够的
劳动法努力处理企业的纵向解体,这对传统的双边和合同分析的雇佣关系和雇主的统一概念提出了质疑。意大利和英国学者提出了多种雇主模式,试图避开目前的僵局。然而,这些似乎与现有的法律框架不一致,此外,它们是否总是有助于解决企业纵向解体所产生的问题,这一点值得商榷。然而,可以遵循另一种更细致的分析路径。劳动法大多认为雇主是雇员的合同对手方。然而,它也承认,在某些特定的监管领域,其他实体可以承担雇主的某些责任,在这些领域,立法者反复采用特殊的监管策略,往往独立于对雇佣关系的合同分析。本文认为,法律采取这一步骤并不是因为这些其他法律实体在功能上与雇主相似,而恰恰是因为它们与雇主形式之间存在差异。与其试图重新定义雇主的概念,更好地理解这一主题,必须认识到就业法是由不同监管领域的万花筒混合而成的,其特点是一系列不同的目的,实现这些目的需要采用不同的、甚至非契约性的规范工具。采用可变几何方法来确定劳动法的范围,将是一种较好的分析性对策,有可能恢复就业保护规范范围的一致性和完整性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信