No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Court of Justice as a Labour Court
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 October 2017
Abstract
Many legal systems have specialist labour courts with jurisdiction over individual employment disputes or collective labour disputes or both. The literature identifies a number of possible justifications for the use of specialist labour courts. This chapter will engage in a critical examination of this literature in order to develop a framework for analysing the performance of courts (whether specialist or otherwise) in deciding labour law cases. We shall then apply that framework to some of the recent case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Centre for European Legal Studies, Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge 2012
References
1 The term ‘labour law cases’ will be used as a convenient shorthand to refer to any case in which a court is called upon to interpret a point of labour law. I shall not seek to distinguish at this stage between cases in which the labour issue is determinative of, or incidental to, the outcome of the case. If the Court of Justice were to adopt a different procedure for dealing with ‘labour law cases’, it would be necessary to think more carefully about the definition and I shall return to this point below.
2 See Adler, S, ‘The Role of Judges in the Implementation of Social Policies’ (2002) 18 International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations 341 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
3 McCarthy, WEJ, ‘The Case for Labour Courts’ (1990) 21 Industrial Relations Journal 98, 99CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
4 Ibid, 99–100.
5 See Genn, H and Genn, Y, The Effectiveness of Representation Before Tribunals (London, Report to the Lord Chancellor, 1989)Google Scholar.
6 McCarthy, , ‘The Case for Labour Courts’ (n 3) 100 Google Scholar.
7 Currently Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, s 219.
8 Eg Express Newspapers v McShane [1979] ICR 210 (CA), 219, per Lord Denning MR.
9 See the decision of the House of Lords in the same case: [1980] AC 672.
10 McCarthy, , ‘The Case for Labour Courts’ (n 3) 99 Google Scholar.
11 Though as a cost-cutting measure the government is reforming the system so that a broader range of matters (including unfair dismissal claims) can be determined by a judge sitting alone: Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, Resolving Workplace Disputes: Government Response to the Consultation (2011) 31.
12 Dugdale v Kraft Foods [1977] ICR 48 (EAT), 54–55.
13 McCarthy (n 3) 99.
14 See, generally: Teubner, G, ‘Substantive and Reflexive Elements in Modern Law’ (1983) 17 Law and Society Review 239 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and for discussion in the labour law context, Lenoble, J and Maesschalck, M, ‘Renewing the Theory of Public Interest: the Quest for a Reflexive and Learning-Based Approach to Governance’ in Schutter, O de and Lenoble, J (eds), Reflexive Governance: Redefining the Public Interest in a Pluralist World (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2010)Google Scholar; Schiek, D, ‘Private Rule-Making and European Governance: Issues of Legitimacy’ (2007) 32 European Law Review 443 Google Scholar.
15 Under Art 267 TFEU.
16 Art 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union requires that all parties before the Court be represented by a lawyer. Legal aid is available (see Art 76 of the Rules of Procedure). When the Court is hearing a reference for a preliminary ruling and the referring court does not require the parties to be represented, the Court may make an exception to the requirement for a lawyer in accordance with Art 104(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
17 McCarthy, , ‘The Case for Labour Courts’ (n 3) 100–105 Google Scholar.
18 For a fascinating comparative analysis looking at the UK and France, see Wedderburn, Lord, ‘Labour Law: From Here to Autonomy?’ (1987) 16 Industrial Law Journal 1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
19 Case C-438/05 International Transport Workers’ Federation v Viking Line [2007] ECR I-10779.
20 Case C-341/05 Laval v Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet [2007] ECR I-11767.
21 See, eg, Barnard, C, ‘Internal Market v Labour Market: A Brief History’ in Vos, M de (ed), European Union Internal Market and Labour Law: Friends or Foes? (Amsterdam, Intersentia, 2009)Google Scholar; Barnard, C, ‘A Proportionate Response to Proportionality in the Field of Collective Action’ (2012) 37 European Law Review 117 Google Scholar; Davies, ACL, ‘One Step Forward, Two Steps Back? The Viking and Laval Cases in the ECJ’ (2008) 37 Industrial Law Journal 126 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Joerges, C and Rödl, F, ‘Informal Politics, Formalised Law and the “Social Deficit” of European Integration: Reflections after the Judgments of the ECJ in Viking and Laval’ (2009) 15 European Law Journal 1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kilpatrick, C, ‘Laval’s Regulatory Conundrum: Collective Standard-Setting and the Court’s New Approach to Posted Workers’ (2009) 34 European Law Review 844 Google Scholar; Malmberg, J and Sigeman, T, ‘Industrial Actions and EU Economic Freedoms: the Autonomous Collective Bargaining Model Curtailed by the European Court of Justice’ (2008) 45 Common Market Law Review 1115 Google Scholar; Syrpis, P and Novitz, T, ‘Economic and Social Rights in Conflict: Political and Judicial Approaches to their Reconciliation’ (2008) 33 European Law Review 411 Google Scholar.
22 McCarthy, , ‘The Case for Labour Courts’ (n 3) 99 Google Scholar.
23 Art 258 TFEU. Another group of labour law cases consists of appeals from the Civil Service Tribunal which lie (on a point of law only) to the General Court.
24 The Court’s decision in Viking (n 19) is a good illustration.
25 It will be argued later in this chapter that one option for reform would be for the Court to adopt a less intrusive stance, allowing the national courts a greater discretion to determine the outcome. But for present purposes we are concerned only with the Court’s current approach.
26 See, eg, Case C-17/05 Cadman v Health and Safety Executive [2006] ECR I-9583 [33]–[40].
27 See Case C-303/98 SIMAP v Conselleria de Sanidad y Consumo de la Generalidad Valenciana [2000] ECR I-7963, and Commission (EC), ‘Communication on the re-examination of Directive 93/104/EC concerning certain aspects of the organisation of Working Time’ COM (2003) 843, pp 19–20.
28 For the current state of play see www.ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=706&langId=e n&intPageId=205 (accessed 25 April 2012).
29 Compare the decisions of the EAT ([2007] IRLR 560) and the CA ([2008] EWCA Civ 430; [2008] IRLR 505) in Consistent Group v Kalwak . Interestingly, though, the Supreme Court’s approach is closer to that of the EAT: see Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher [2011] UKSC 41, [2011] ICR 1157.
30 Case 143/83 Commission v Denmark [1985] ECR 427.
31 Then Dir 75/117/EEC.
32 Commission v Denmark (n 30) [11].
33 Commission v Denmark (n 30) [7].
34 Dir 2002/14/EC.
35 Case C-405/08 Ingeniørforeningen i Danmark (on behalf of Holst) v Dansk Arbejdsgiverforening [2010] ECR I-985.
36 Laval (n 20).
37 Dir 96/71/EC. At the time of writing there is a proposal to supplement this directive with an enforcement directive: Commission (EC), ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC Concerning the Posting of Workers in the Framework of the Provision of Services’ COM (2012) 131 final.
38 Laval (n 20) [71].
39 Laval (n 20) [100].
40 Laval (n 20) [258]–[260] (AG’s Opinion).
41 For discussion see Davies, P, ‘Posted Workers: Single Market or Protection of National Labour Law Systems?’ (1997) 34 Common Market Law Review 571 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
42 See, originally Dir 75/117/EC, Art 4.
43 Case C-33/89 Kowalska v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg [1990] ECR I-2591.
44 See, eg, Dir 2003/88/EC, Art 18.
45 Though cf the Opinion of AG Trstenjak in Case C-282/10 Dominguez v Centre informatique du Centre Ouest Atlantique (2011, nyr) [69]–[170].
46 Case C-131/04 Robinson-Steele v RD Retail Services Ltd [2006] ECR I-2531.
47 Dir 2003/88/EC, Art 7.
48 Bogg, A, ‘The Right to Paid Annual Leave in the Court of Justice: The Eclipse of Functionalism’ (2006) 31 European Law Review 892, 898–99 and 904–905Google Scholar.
49 Robinson-Steele (n 46) (AG’s Opinion) [75] ff.
50 Case C-303/98 SIMAP (n 27) [71]–[74]; Case C-397/01 Pfeiffer v Deutsches Rotes Kreuz [2004] ECR I-8835 [80].
51 See Barnard, C, Deakin, S and Hobbs, R, ‘Opting Out of the 48-Hour Week: Employer Necessity or Individual Choice? An Empirical Study of the Operation of Article 18(1)(b) of the Working Time Directive in the UK’ (2003) 32 Industrial Law Journal 223 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
52 Case C-45/09 Rosenbladt v Oellerking Gebäudereinigungsges. mbH. [2010] ECR 00 [53], discussing Dir 2000/78/EC.
53 Ibid [67].
54 Rosenbladt (n 52) [69].
55 Kilpatrick, C, ‘The Court of Justice and Labour Law in 2010: A New EU Discrimination Law Architecture’ (2011) 40 Industrial Law Journal 280 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 295–96, and cf in the sex discrimination context Case C-127/92 Enderby v Frenchay Health Authority [1993] ECR I-5535.
56 Rosenbladt (n 52) [68].
57 Above n 19 and n 20 respectively.
58 ACL Davies, ‘One Step Forward, Two Steps Back?’ (n 21).
59 See above n 21. For an interesting recent discussion of different ways of remedying this problem, see Barnard, ‘A Proportionate Response’ (n 21).
60 Kahn-Freund, O, ‘Legal Framework’ in Flanders, A and Clegg, HA (eds), The System of Industrial Relations in Great Britain: Its History, Law and Institutions (London, Blackwell, 1954)Google Scholar.
61 Laval (n 20) [81].
62 Viking (n 19) [82].
63 For discussion see T Novitz, ‘Resistance to Re-Flagging: a Restricted Right to Strike’ [2008] Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly 266, 272.
64 Viking (n 19) [87].
65 For a detailed analysis of the harm caused by industrial action see Novitz, T, International and European Protection of the Right to Strike (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar ch 4.
66 Commission (EC), ‘Proposal for a Council Regulation on the Exercise of the Right to Take Collective Action within the Context of the Freedom of Establishment and the Freedom to Provide Services’ COM (2012) 130 final.
67 C-271/08 Commission v Germany [2010] ECR I-7091.
68 Barnard, , ‘A Proportionate Response’ (n 21) 125 Google Scholar.
69 EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, Art 28. The EU’s planned accession to the European Convention on Human Rights will strengthen these obligations given the European Court of Human Rights’ recent expansive case law on Art 11 (Demir v Turkey (2009) 48 EHRR 54; Enerji Yapi-Yol Sen v Turkey (Application No 68959/01, judgment 21 April 2009)
70 Case 109/88 Handelsog Kontorfunktionærernes Forbund I Danmark v Dansk Arbejdsgiverforening (on behalf of Danfoss) [1989] ECR 3199.
71 Dir 97/80/EC.
72 Case 43–75 Defrenne v SABENA [1976] ECR 455; Case C-262/88 Barber v Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance Group [1990] ECR I-1889.
73 Originally Dir 77/187/EEC. The current text is Dir 2001/23/EC.
74 Case C-13/95 Süzen v Zehnacker Gebäudereinigung GmbH Krankenhausservice [1997] ECR I-1259.
75 Above n 73, Art 1(1)(b).
76 See, eg Case C-172/99 Oy Liikenne Ab v Liskojärvi [2001] ECR I-745; Case C-340/01 Abler v Sodexho [2003] ECR I-14023.
77 Davies, P, ‘Taken to the Cleaners? Contracting Out of Services Yet Again’ (1997) 26 Industrial Law Journal 193, 196CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
78 Case C-450/93 Kalanke v Freie Hansestadt Bremen [1995] ECR I-3051.
79 See Commission (EC), ‘On the Interpretation of the Judgment of the Court of Justice on 17 October 1995 in Case C-450/93 Kalanke v Freie Hansestadt Bremen’ COM (96) 88 final.
80 Case C-409/95 Marschall v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen [1997] ECR I-6363.
81 Ibid [29].
82 Though it is worth noting that the UK has recently legislated to permit positive action within these constraints: Equality Act 2010, s 159.
83 Dir 2003/88/EC.
84 Ibid, Art 2.
85 SIMAP (n 27).
86 Case C-151/02 Landeshauptstadt Kiel v Jaeger [2003] ECR I-8389; and see also Case C-14/04 Dellas v Premier ministre [2005] ECR I-10253.
87 SIMAP (n 27) [48].
88 Commission (EC), ‘Communication on the re-examination of Directive 93/104/EC concerning certain aspects of the organisation of Working Time’ COM (2003) 843, pp 19–20 Google Scholar.
89 Commission (EC), ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2003/88/EC concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time’ COM (2004) 607 final.
90 Case C-173/99 R (BECTU) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2001] ECR I-4881 [47].
91 Decision 2004/752 establishing the EU CST.
92 Kilpatrick, , ‘The Court of Justice’ (n 55) 281 Google Scholar (Table 1).
93 See, eg, More, G, ‘The Principle of Equal Treatment: from Market Unifier to Fundamental Right’ in Craig, P and Búrca, G de (eds), The Evolution of EU Law (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1999)Google Scholar; Davies, G, ‘Discrimination and Beyond in European Economic and Social Law’ (2011) 18 Maastricht Journal 7 Google Scholar.
94 Court of Justice, Annual Report 2010, 90.
95 As an alternative to, or perhaps in addition to, this proposal, one of the AdvocatesGeneral could be encouraged to specialise in social law.
96 See, eg, Allott, P, ‘Preliminary Rulings—Another Infant Disease’ (2000) 25 European Law Review 538 Google Scholar; Komarek, J, ‘In the Court(s) We Trust? On the Need for Hierarchy and Differentiation in the Preliminary Ruling Procedure’ (2007) 32 European Law Review 467 Google Scholar.
97 Commission v Germany (n 67).