Industrial actions and EU economic freedoms: The autonomous collective bargaining model curtailed by the European Court of Justice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Is the right to take collective action as enshrined in a Member State?s national law restricted in any way by the rules on right of establishment under Article 43 EC or on freedom to provide services under Article 49 EC and the Posted Workers Directive? These were the main questions referred to the ECJ in the Viking and Laval cases decided by the Court in December 2007. In this article, the authors take stock of the EC rules brought to the fore in the cases. According to the judgments, the trade unions concerned are caught by the direct horizontal effect of the Treaty articles. Collective actions, with cross–border implications, may constitute a restriction on the economic freedoms under the Treaty. Such a restriction may, however, be justified under specific conditions. Even if the Court recognized the right to take collective actions as a fundamental right in Community law, the exercise of that right must be reconciled with the requirements of other rights protected under the Treaty. The judgments imply that the right to different kinds of collective actions depends on the aim of the action in question. In Laval, the secondary actions taken did not aim to directly regulate the employment conditions of the attacking union’s own members but rather at establishing a uniform level of wages and employment conditions applied by all undertakings in the branch, and the outcome was not confirmed in formal legislation, according to the Swedish social model. Since this demand went beyond protecting the “hard nucleus” of the Posted Workers Directive, the restriction caused by the collective actions was not justified.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.022 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".