In Austria, a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) for bicycle deliverers has been in force since 1 January 2020. According to the contracting parties (the Austrian Chamber of Commerce and the Austrian Trade Union Federation), it is the first of its kind worldwide.1x https://www.vida.at/cms/S03/S03_4.8.a/1342616918551/kollektivvertrag/strasse/weltweit-erster-kv-fuer-fahrradboten-abgeschlossen. On this occasion, this article examines the legal basis for employment in this sector and whether this long-awaited step will really lead to an improvement for bicycle deliverers. Noten |
Search result: 4 articles
The search results will be filtered on:Journal European Employment Law Cases x
Article |
|
Journal | European Employment Law Cases, Issue 1 2020 |
Keywords | Employment status |
Authors | Thomas Dullinger |
AbstractAuthor's information |
Case Reports |
2019/47 Transfer of undertakings does not include temporary agency workers (AT) |
Journal | European Employment Law Cases, Issue 4 2019 |
Keywords | Transfer of undertakings, Transfer, Employees who transfer/refuse to transfer |
Authors | Thomas B. Pfalz |
AbstractAuthor's information |
In a series of rulings the Austrian Supreme Court has made it clear that temporary agency workers are transferred to the transferee only if they are assigned to the transferor on a permanent basis. According to the Court, the facts of the cases at hand are not comparable to those of the ECJ ruling in Albron Catering BV (C-242/09). Hence the temporary agency workers remain with their original employer. However, some aspects of the Court’s reasoning seem unclear if not contradictory with regard to other recent judgments. |
Case Reports |
2019/28 An employer may impose a ban on the wearing of any visible sign of political, philosophical or religious beliefs on employees in contact with customers (FR) |
Journal | European Employment Law Cases, Issue 3 2019 |
Keywords | Religious discrimination |
Authors | Claire Toumieux and Thomas Robert |
AbstractAuthor's information |
Both the French Supreme Court and the Versailles Court of Appeal held that an employer, who must ensure that liberties and fundamental rights of each employee are respected in the working community, may lawfully prohibit the wearing of any visible sign of political, philosophical or religious beliefs in the workplace, provided that the rule contained in the company rules and regulations applies without distinction to employees in direct contact with the customers of the company only. But in the absence of such rules, sanctioning an employee who refuses to remove her Islamic veil based on the wish of a customer, which does not qualify as a genuine and determining occupational requirement, amounts to an unlawful direct discrimination and should consequently be held null and void. |
Case Reports |
2019/24 Court of Appeal rejects Uber’s worker status appeal (UK) |
Journal | European Employment Law Cases, Issue 2 2019 |
Keywords | Miscellaneous, Employment Status |
Authors | Jemma Thomas |
AbstractAuthor's information |
Following an appeal by Uber against the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s (EAT) finding last year, which was featured in EELC 2018/9, that drivers engaged by Uber are ‘workers’ rather than independent contractors (reported in EELC 2018-1), the Court of Appeal (CA) has now upheld the EAT’s decision. The CA also upheld the finding of the Employment Tribunal (ET), which was featured in EELC 2017/10, that drivers are working when they are signed into the Uber app and ready to work (reported in EECL 2017-1). Uber has approximately 40,000 drivers (and about 3.5 million users of its mobile phone application in London alone) and so this decision has potentially significant financial consequences for the company. |