Collective labour law after Viking, Laval, Rüffert, and Commission v. Luxembourg
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The judgments of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in the International Transport Workers’ Federation and Finnish Seamen’s Union v Viking Line ABP and OÜ Viking Line Eesti (hereinafter ‘Viking’), Laval un Partneri Ltd v Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet and Others (hereinafter ‘Laval’), Dirk Rüffert, in his capacity as liquidator of the assets of Objekt und Bauregie GmbH & Co. KG v Land Niedersachsen (hereinafter ‘Rüffert’), and Commission v. Luxembourg cases have given rise to much criticism. The ECJ has given priority to free movement principles over fundamental collective labour rights. In this contribution, the author analyzes the consequences of these judgments for the collective labour law of the Member States. Some Member States will have to adapt their labour law. It must not be overlooked that the ECJ also offers support for collective labour rights. For the fi rst time, the right to bargain collectively and the right to take industrial action have been recognized as fundamental rights in EU law. Moreover, the ECJ explicitly recognizes that the protection of jobs and employment conditions of workers is an overriding reason of public interest, which can justify collective actions restricting the fundamental freedoms of the Treaty.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".