MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2750938520 · doi:10.1093/indlaw/dwx013

The Strasbourg Court Treats Trade Unionists with Contempt: <i>Svenska Transportarbetareförbundet and Seko v Sweden</i>

2017· article· en· W2750938520 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Keith Ewing, John Hendy

Bibliographic record

VenueIndustrial Law Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorld Trade Organization Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContemptPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Svenska Transportarbetareförbundet and Seko v Sweden,1 Swedish trade unions took industrial action against a Norwegian owned ship flagged in Panama, which had docked in Sweden, unless and until the owners entered an International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) approved collective agreement, which paid ITF wage rates to the Polish officers and Russian crew.2 The owner made the agreement (though later reneged on it) and sued the unions in the Swedish Labour Court. The latter referred the case to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), which held that the industrial action might infringe the Norwegian company’s freedom to provide services to another State (under the European Economic Area arrangements that duplicate Article 49, EU Treaty),3 following its jurisprudence in the Viking and Laval line of authority.4 On that basis, the Swedish Labour Court held that the proportionality of the industrial action therefore had to be examined (in accordance with Viking and Laval). It concluded that the wage rates in the collective agreement were excessive and therefore the industrial action illegitimately interfered with the Norwegian ship owner’s EU (or rather EEA) freedom to provide services. Substantial damages were awarded. The Swedish unions applied to the ECtHR claiming a violation of their right to strike and to bargain collectively protected by Article 11.5 The ECtHR (Judge O’Leary, a distinguished Irish EU labour lawyer, sitting alone) ‘found that the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention have not been met’ by the application.6 No further or other reasons were disclosed for its dismissal.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.468
Threshold uncertainty score0.930

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0170.008
Scholarly communication0.0120.003
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0330.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndustrial Law JournalSame topicWorld Trade Organization LawFrench-language works237,207