“A Worker is a Worker is a Worker” Collective Bargaining and Platform Work, the Case of Deliveroo Couriers
The focus of this commentary is the compatibility of Section 296(1)(b) of the 1992 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULR(C)A) with Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), insofar as it excludes workers who do not provide their service personally from b...
| Autor: | |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2019 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | IE |
| Repositorio: | Repositorio IE |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:repositorio.ie.edu:20.500.14417/3331 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4639960 https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14417/3331 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Gig-economy UK labour law Collective rights 56 Ciencias Jurídicas y Derecho ODS 8 - Trabajo decente y crecimiento económico |
| Sumario: | The focus of this commentary is the compatibility of Section 296(1)(b) of the 1992 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULR(C)A) with Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), insofar as it excludes workers who do not provide their service personally from being represented by a union on the negotiation of pay and terms and conditions of work. The case shows how the domestic term worker may be equivocal and its interpretation seems at odds with various international standards, including the ILO’s instruments. This confusion raises the question of whether steps should be taken to “bring domestic law into alignment [with European law] in the interests of legal certainty.” |
|---|