Jeremias Prassl

The concept of the employer

PART I: A CONCEPT UNDER PRESSURE PART II: THE IMPLICATIONS OF A CONCEPT UNDER PRESSURE PART III: TOWARDS A FUNCTIONAL CONCEPT OF THE EMPLOYER

The Legal Protection of Crowdworkers: Four Avenues for Workers’ Rights in the Virtual Realm

The rapid ascent of crowdwork has caught regulators and lawyers off guard. Many platform operators assert that they are merely conduits, introducing independent contractors to their customers, far beyond the scope of employment law. In this chapter, a series of options are explored to ensure that crowdwork remains within (or is brought back into) the scope of employment and labor law. The avenues explored range from interpretative approaches rethinking the notions of employer and employee to the introduction or extension of intermediary categories (like workers or employee-like persons) to specific legislation dealing with the peculiarities of crowdwork.

Vexatious Claims: Challenging the Case for Employment Tribunal Fees

Since July 2013, recourse to Employment Tribunals in the United Kingdom has attracted fees of up to £1,200 for single claimants. The impact of this reform has been dramatic: within a year, claims dropped by nearly 80 per cent. This paper suggests that this fee regime is in clear violation of domestic and international norms, including Article 6(1) ECHR and the EU principle of effective judicial protection. Drawing on rational choice theory and empirical evidence, we argue that the resulting payoff structures, negative for the majority of successful claimants, strike at the very essence of these rights. The measures are, furthermore, disproportionate in light of the Governments stated policy aims: fees have failed to transfer cost away from taxpayers, have failed to encourage early dispute resolution, and have failed to deter vexatious litigants. The only vexatious claims, we find, appear to be those which motivated the reforms in the first place.Since July 2013, recourse to Employment Tribunals in the United Kingdom has attracted fees of up to £1,200 for single claimants. The impact of this reform has been dramatic: within a year, claims dropped by nearly 80 per cent. This paper suggests that this fee regime is in clear violation of domestic and international norms, including Article 6(1) ECHR and the EU principle of effective judicial protection. Drawing on rational choice theory and empirical evidence, we argue that the resulting payoff structures, negative for the majority of successful claimants, strike at the very essence of these rights. The measures are, furthermore, disproportionate in light of the Governments stated policy aims: fees have failed to transfer cost away from taxpayers, have failed to encourage early dispute resolution, and have failed to deter vexatious litigants. The only vexatious claims, we find, appear to be those which motivated the reforms in the first place.

Employees, workers and the ‘sharing economy’ Changing practices and changing concepts in The United Kingdom

Recent years have seen a radical shift in the practice and profile of the labour economy in the United Kingdom consisting in the considerable growth of the so-called ‘Sharing Economy’ or ‘Gig Economy’, better identified as the ‘On-demand Economy’. From that starting point, it is argued that a corresponding change seems to have occurred in the set of concepts which the labour/ employment law of the United Kingdom uses to analyse and to characterize the work relations and work contracts which are created, made, and operated within this rapidly growing sector of the labour market. Two recent high-profile Employment Tribunal decisions in the Uber and Citysprint cases, and a decision of the Court of Appeal in this same area in the Pimlico Plumbers case have served to confirm the legislative creation of a third intermediate category of ‘workers’ who benefit from a set of employment rights which is more limited than that enjoyed by employees but which is nevertheless very important. This crystallization of labour law’s newly tripartite taxonomy of work relations has occurred very largely in the context of the on-demand economy, and is beneficial to those located in that sector. This is, however, a rather fragile conceptual structure.

Future Directions in EU Labour Law

The present edition of the European Labour Law Journal presents the results of a yearlong research and policy engagement project funded by the British Academy. Future Directions in EU Labour Law brought together early career scholars in employment law from across the European Union with senior mentors and policy experts from across the European Institutions. This guest editorial set outs the background to the project, introduces and highlights the key themes of the papers to follow, and acknowledges the support that the project has enjoyed over the course of 2015.

Verpflichtende Außergerichtliche Vermittlungsverfahren im Englischen Arbeitsrecht: ein erster Erfahrungsbericht

In England, Schottland und Wales wurde 2014 ein obligatorisches außergerichtliches Vermittlungsverfahren (Early Conciliation) eingeführt, das vor jeder Klage beim Arbeitsgericht einzuleiten ist. Zuständig ist der Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS), eine öffentlich geförderte, unabhängige Einrichtung. Im folgenden Beitrag erläutern die Verfasser die neue Rolle von ACAS als verpflichtende Schlichtungsstelle für fast alle individualarbeitsrechtlichen Streitigkeiten. Sie beleuchten die Hintergründe, rechtliche Grundlage und tatsächliche Handhabung des neuen Vor-Verfahrens. Auf der Basis der ersten verfügbaren Informationen über die fast durchweg negativen Auswirkungen, die außergerichtliche Vermittlungsverfahren auf die Lösung von Problemen am Arbeitsplatz haben, ziehen die Verfasser vorläufige Schlussfolgerungen über den (Miss-)erfolg dieser Innovation, die gerade den sozialschwächsten Arbeitnehmerinnen den Zugang zum Rechtsschutz erheblich erschwert.