集体协议还是共谋协议?

IF 0.7 Q2 LAW
Ciara Denihan
{"title":"集体协议还是共谋协议?","authors":"Ciara Denihan","doi":"10.54648/woco2023019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The world of work, and indeed the Treaty itself, has changed considerably since the Court first examined the issue of competition law and collective bargaining agreements in the Albany decision. Exempting only those categorised as employees from the scope of Article 101 is no longer adequate to address the imbalance of bargaining power recognised by the Court. Although recognition of the ‘false self-employed’ in FNV went some way towards acknowledging the atypical position of some workers, confusion also stemmed from this intermediary category, which led to inconsistent approaches across Member States. The combination of the COVID-19 pandemic, the increased digitisation of the world of work, and a prominent decision at international level finally prompted the Commission to take action to remedy the uncertainty, by introducing Guidelines on the application of Article 101 to collective agreements regarding the working conditions of solo self-employed persons. The purpose of this paper is thus to critically analyse the likely effectiveness of these Guidelines, focusing on their substance and form respectively, while also exploring potential avenues for the Commission and the Court to provide increased legal certainty for solo self-employed persons seeking to collectively bargain, against the backdrop of an increasingly social understanding of the Treaties.\nCollective bargaining, Solo self-employed, Albany exception, Interpretative guidelines, Enforcement priorities, Non-competition concerns","PeriodicalId":43861,"journal":{"name":"World Competition","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Collective or Collusive Agreements?\",\"authors\":\"Ciara Denihan\",\"doi\":\"10.54648/woco2023019\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The world of work, and indeed the Treaty itself, has changed considerably since the Court first examined the issue of competition law and collective bargaining agreements in the Albany decision. Exempting only those categorised as employees from the scope of Article 101 is no longer adequate to address the imbalance of bargaining power recognised by the Court. Although recognition of the ‘false self-employed’ in FNV went some way towards acknowledging the atypical position of some workers, confusion also stemmed from this intermediary category, which led to inconsistent approaches across Member States. The combination of the COVID-19 pandemic, the increased digitisation of the world of work, and a prominent decision at international level finally prompted the Commission to take action to remedy the uncertainty, by introducing Guidelines on the application of Article 101 to collective agreements regarding the working conditions of solo self-employed persons. The purpose of this paper is thus to critically analyse the likely effectiveness of these Guidelines, focusing on their substance and form respectively, while also exploring potential avenues for the Commission and the Court to provide increased legal certainty for solo self-employed persons seeking to collectively bargain, against the backdrop of an increasingly social understanding of the Treaties.\\nCollective bargaining, Solo self-employed, Albany exception, Interpretative guidelines, Enforcement priorities, Non-competition concerns\",\"PeriodicalId\":43861,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"World Competition\",\"volume\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"World Competition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.54648/woco2023019\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Competition","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/woco2023019","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Collective or Collusive Agreements?
The world of work, and indeed the Treaty itself, has changed considerably since the Court first examined the issue of competition law and collective bargaining agreements in the Albany decision. Exempting only those categorised as employees from the scope of Article 101 is no longer adequate to address the imbalance of bargaining power recognised by the Court. Although recognition of the ‘false self-employed’ in FNV went some way towards acknowledging the atypical position of some workers, confusion also stemmed from this intermediary category, which led to inconsistent approaches across Member States. The combination of the COVID-19 pandemic, the increased digitisation of the world of work, and a prominent decision at international level finally prompted the Commission to take action to remedy the uncertainty, by introducing Guidelines on the application of Article 101 to collective agreements regarding the working conditions of solo self-employed persons. The purpose of this paper is thus to critically analyse the likely effectiveness of these Guidelines, focusing on their substance and form respectively, while also exploring potential avenues for the Commission and the Court to provide increased legal certainty for solo self-employed persons seeking to collectively bargain, against the backdrop of an increasingly social understanding of the Treaties. Collective bargaining, Solo self-employed, Albany exception, Interpretative guidelines, Enforcement priorities, Non-competition concerns
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
25.00%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: Information not localized
×
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