Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 October 2017
In important recent cases dealing with labour law issues, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) relied on a combination of international, European and domestic sources to justify their decisions. In Viking and Laval, the ECJ recognised that the right to take collective action as a fundamental right protected by EU law. In Demir and Baykara v Turkey, the ECtHR decided, for the first time, that the right to bargain collectively is an essential elements the right to form and to join trade unions covered by Article 11 of the European Convention for the protection of Human Rights. This chapter considers the reliance on multiple sources of law in this series of cases and questions the ‘combination method’ used by European courts to identify or interpret human right provisions. It argues that globalisation of legal sources in the area of labour law does not necessarily lead to ‘globalisation’ of labour law, allowing common solutions or, at least, harmonised solutions to come to life. The outcome of normative interaction is not universal labour law but instead largely depends on which court decides the case. Therefore, litigation strategies in the field of labour law should make use of the potential of normative interactions without ignoring the opportunities offered by the diversity of courts.
1 Case C-438/05 International Transport Workers’ Federation, Finnish Seamen’s Union v Viking Line ABP, OÜ Viking Line Eesti [2007] ECR I-10779 and Case C-341/05 Laval und Partneri Ltd v Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundets avdelning 1, Byggettan, Svenska Elektrikerförbundet [2007] ECR I-11767.
2 Demir and Baykara v Turkey (App no 34503/97) (2009) 48 EHRR 54.
3 See, namely, Cass Soc 1 July 2008, no 07-44.124, applying directly the ILO convention 158 to set aside a French Statute establishing a contrat nouvelles embauches (allowing dismissal at will during the first two years of employment). See also, most recently, Cass Soc 16 Dec 2008, no 05-40876, applying the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights to set aside a provision of domestic law.
4 Fudge, J, ‘The Supreme Court of Canada and the Right to Bargain Collectively: The Implication of the Health Services and Support Case in Canada and Beyond’ (2008) 37 Industrial Law Journal 25, 26CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
5 Viking and Laval, above n 1. Among the numerous articles on these cases, see: Davies, A, ‘One Step Forward, Two Steps Back? The Viking and Laval Cases in the ECJ’ (2008) 37 Industrial Law Journal 126 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Barnard, C, ‘Social dumping or dumping socialism?’ (2008) 67 Cambridge Law Journal 262 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Barnard, C, ‘Viking and Laval: An Introduction’ (2007–08) 10 Cambridge Yearbook of European Law Studies 463 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Novitz, T, ‘Taking collective action’ (2008) 7(4) Competition Law Insight 10 Google Scholar; Rodière, P, ‘Les arrêts Viking et Laval, le droit de grève et le droit de négociation collective’ (2008) 44(1) Revue Trimestrielle de droit européen 47 Google Scholar; Robin-Olivier, S and Pataut, E, ‘Europe sociale ou Europe économique?’ (2008) Revue de droit du travail 80 Google Scholar; Simon, D, ‘Libre circulation des entreprises, conventions collectives et actions syndicales’ (2008) 40 Europe Comm 18 Google Scholar.
6 See n 1 above.
7 See n 2 above. On this decision, see: Marguénaud, J-P and Mouly, J, ‘L’avènement d’une Cour européenne des droits sociaux’ (2009) Recueil Dalloz Chron 739 Google Scholar; Sudre, F, ‘L’interprétation constructive de la liberté syndicale, au sens de l’article 11 de la Convention EDH’ (2009) 5 La Semaine Juridique ed G G II 10018 30 Google Scholar.
8 On the role of courts in the development of labour law in a globalised environment, see Moreau, M-A, Normes sociales, droit du travail et mondialisation (Paris, Dalloz, 2006) 397–406 Google Scholar. See also, as an illustration of the increased role of courts in a globalised environment, Joined Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P, Yassin Abdullah Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities, judgment of 3 September 2008, nyr, in which the ECJ allows itself to assess the violation of EU law (protection of fundamental rights) by a EU regulation enforcing UN resolutions.
9 See n 3 above.
10 See for instance: A (FC) and others (Appellants) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) [2004] UKHL 56 concerning the application of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001: reference is made (at [39]) to varied sources including the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966, the doctrine of international organisations such as the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council Europe or the UN Human rights Committee, and decisions of the US and Canadian Supreme Courts.
11 Art 6 of the European Social Charter (revised) contains the following provision concerning the right to bargain collectively: ‘With a view to ensuring the effective exercise of the right to bargain collectively, the Parties undertake: 1. to promote joint consultation between workers and employers; 2. to promote, where necessary and appropriate, machinery for voluntary negotiations between employers or employers’ organisations and workers’ organisations, with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements; 3. to promote the establishment and use of appropriate machinery for conciliation and voluntary arbitration for the settlement of labour disputes; and recognise: 4. the right of workers and employers to collective action in cases of conflicts of interest, including the right to strike, subject to obligations that might arise out of collective agreements previously entered into’.
12 Article 13 of the Community Charter of Fundamental Social Rights provides that ‘the right to resort to collective action in the event of a conflict of interests shall include the right to strike, subject to the obligations arising under national regulations and collective agreements’.
13 According to Art 28 of the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights concerning the Right of Collective Bargaining and Action: ‘Workers and employers, or their respective organisations, have, in accordance with Community law and national laws and practices, the right to negotiate and conclude collective agreements at the appropriate levels and, in cases of conflicts of interest, to take collective action to defend their interests, including strike action’.
14 See Viking, above n 1, para 43; Laval, above n 1, para 90.
15 See Davies, above n 5.
16 Viking, above n 1, para 86.
17 On the role of comparative law in the development of EU law, see MP Maduro, ‘Le rôle de la Cour de justice dans un contexte de pluralisme juridique’ Conference at the French Cour de cassation, 17 December 2007, available at: http://www.network-presidents.eu/spip. php?rubrique89&lang=fr.
18 See for instance, Case 222/84 Johnston [1986] ECR 1651, recognising a right to judicial review on the basis of common constitutional traditions, notwithstanding the fact that the law of the Member State concerned did not recognise this right. On this case and, more generally, the debate concerning the method for identifying common traditions, see Lenaerts, K, ‘Interlocking Legal Orders or the European Union Variant of E Pluribus Unum’ in Canivet, G, Andenas, M and Fairgrieve, D (eds), Comparative Law before the Courts (London, BIICL, 2005) 113-14Google Scholar.
19 Laval, above n 1, para 77.
20 On this complex case law, see Fallon, M, ‘L’épreuve comparative devant la Cour de Justice’ in Robin-Olivier, S and Fasquelle, D (eds), Les échanges entre les droits, L’expérience communautaire (Brussels, Bruylant, 2008) 37 Google Scholar; and Lenaerts, above n 18, 99–134.
21 It provides that the right to take part in the determination of working conditions applies everywhere in the public service, with the exception of the possibilities for states to limit this right for members of the armed forces or the police.
22 This is how Sudre, above n 7, 30, describes the phenomenon.
23 See Demir and Baykara, above n 2, para 76: ‘it depends on the legal question’.
24 Ibid, para 68.
25 Ibid, para 76.
26 Art 32 of the Vienna Convention.
27 See Demir and Baykara, above n 2, para 85.
28 Ibid.
29 Ibid.
30 See the text relating to nn 17–20 above.
31 See, for instance, N Underhill’s remarks on the decision in A and Others v National Blood Authority (No 1) [2001] 3 All ER 289 (Court) in Canivet, G, Andenas, M and Fairgrieve, D (eds), Comparative Law before the Courts (London, BIICL, 2005) 78–9Google Scholar. See also the position of Justice Scalia in the debate on the Constitutional relevance of foreign courts’ decisions, according to which the use of foreign law invites manipulation (transcript of the debate accessible at: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1352357/posts).
32 Demir and Baykara, above n 2, para 85.
33 As an example see Kadi and Al Barakaat, above n 8, in which the ECJ considered that a regulation implementing UN resolutions had to be reviewed under the EU-specific conception of fundamental rights.
34 See for instance: in the House of Lords in England, A (FC) and others (Appellants) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) [2004] UKHL 56 (‘the Belmarsh case’); in Canada, Health Services and Support—Facilities Subsector Bargaining Association v British Columbia 2007 SCC 27 (‘the Health Services and Support case’); in the Cour de Cassation in France, Cass soc 2 octobre 2001, Bull civ V, no 291 (‘the Nikon France case’).
35 See the protocol to the Lisbon Treaty: ‘On the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to Poland and to the United Kingdom’, Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, signed at Lisbon, 13 December 2007, OJ 2007 C306/1.
36 On this issue, see Atleson, J, Compa, L et al, International Labor Law, Cases and Materials on Workers’ rights in the Global Economy (Eagan MN, Thomson West, 2007) 88–9Google Scholar.
37 ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work (1998).
38 On that critique, see Alston, P, ‘Core Labour Standards and the Transformation of the International Labour Rights Regime’ (2004) 15 European Journal of International Law 457 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
39 See pt 157 of the Demir and Baykara case.
40 On this observation, see Sudre, above n 7.
41 See, for instance, Carlson v Switzerland (App no 49492/06) judgment of 10 November 2008, nyr.
42 Case C-117/01 KB v National Health Service Pensions Agency and Secretary of State for Health [2004] ECR I-541.
43 See Ewing, K, ‘The Implications of the ASLEF Case’ (2007) 33 ILJ 425 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
44 Boycott is mentioned in the Laval case, above n 1.
45 As illustrated in Joined Cases C-267/91 and C-268/91 Keck and Mithouard [1993] ECR I-6097.
46 The most famous example of the extensive conception of fundamental freedoms developed by the ECJ is the ‘Cassis de Dijon’ case, Case 120/78 Rewe-Zentral AG v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein [1979] ECR 649, concerning free movement of goods, which solution migrated to the other three freedoms. On that evolution, see Barnard, C, The Substantive Law of the EU, The Four Freedoms (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2004) 100-127, 234–40, 295–7Google Scholar; Chalmers, D et al, European Union Law (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2006) 659–88, 747–79Google Scholar; Bergé, JS and Robin-Oliver, S, Introduction au droit européen (Paris, PUF, 2008) 141–7Google Scholar.
47 See Art 39(2), and Art 43, para 2.
48 On the application of free movement provisions to private parties, the so-called horizontal effect, see Advocate General Maduro’s Opinion in Viking, above n 1, para 49.
49 This classical reasoning is applied in both the Viking and Laval cases, above n 1.
50 See in particular Case C-112/00 Eugen Schmidberger, Internationale Transporte und Planzüge v Republik Österreich [2003] ECR I-5659, where the Court seemed eager to leave more margin of discretion to States when the protection of fundamental rights, granted by national Constitutions, hindered the free movement right.
51 See Art 137(5) EC Treaty.
52 Wedderburn, Lord, ‘Freedom and the Frontiers of Labour Law’ in Essays on Labour Law and Freedom (London, L&W, 1995) 391 Google Scholar.
53 On this evolution, see Barnard, C, EC Employment Law, 3rd edn (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2006) 749–73Google Scholar and Marguénaud, J-P and Mouly, J, ‘L’avènement d’une Cour européenne des droits sociaux’ (2009) Recueil Dalloz Chron 739 Google Scholar.
54 See the joined cases of Schmidt and Dahlström v Sweden (App no 5589/72) (1979–80) 1 EHRR 632.
55 See Gustafsson v Sweden (App no 15573/89) (1996) 22 EHRR 409; Wilson and others v United Kingdom (App nos 30668/96, 30671/96 and 30678/96) (2002) 35 EHRR 20.
56 See UNISON v United Kingdom (App no 53574/99) [2002] IRLR 497; Wilson v UK, above n 55.
57 See the Declaration on Core Labour Standards worked out by the ILO (1998).
58 For a recent presentation of the Charter and the ‘case law’ developed by the Committee of Social Rights, see Cullen, H, ‘The Collective Complaint System of the European Social Charter: Interpretative Methods of the European Committee of Social Rights’ (2009) 9 Human Rights Law Review 61 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
59 Such expansion occurred, as a matter of fact, in a recent case decided on 21 April 2009 by the third section of the EctHR: Enerji Yapi Yol Sen v Turkey (App n°68959/01) (final version not yet published), which made it clear that the right to strike was protected under article 11. On this case, see namely, J-P Marguénaud and J|Mouly ‘La Cour européenne des droits de l’homme à la conquête du droit de grève’ (2009) RDT 499-504.
60 See J-P Marguénaud and J Mouly, above n 7, 744. See also, for an example of the extension of Art 6 of the Convention to the field of labour and employment law, Miclici v Romania (App no 23657/03), judgment of 20 December 2007.
61 On this limitation, see Bergé and Robin-Olivier, above n 46, 255–6.
62 On this hypothesis, see Robin-Olivier and Pataut, above n 5, 83–4.
63 Enerji Yapi Yol Sen v Turkey, above n 59.
64 See above.
65 Using this expression about the development of the Canadian Supreme Court case law, see J Fudge, above n 4.
66 See ‘Bosphorus Airways’ v Ireland (App no 45036/98) (2006) 42 EHRR 1.
67 On such changes, resulting from the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, see Syrpis, P, ‘The Treaty of Lisbon: Much Ado … But About What?’ (2008) 37 Industrial Law Journal 219 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
68 Ibid.
69 Ibid.
70 On this co-operation, see Bergé and Robin-Olivier, above n 46, 261–5.
71 New questions about conflicting decisions of European courts have arisen since the joined cases of Kadi and Al Barakaat, above n 8, were decided, showing more determination on the part of the ECJ to protect human rights in the face of measures against terrorism restricting freedoms for security reasons, whereas the ECtHR seems more tolerant to restrictions introduced by international law adopted in order to combat terrorism following 11 September 2001.
