Author
Abstract
In the European legal order, the criterion of ‘business risk-assumption’ is increasingly being used by the ECJ as an element that would point to the existence of an independent working relationship. To what type of risks is the Court referring to? What are the normative underpinnings of this criterion and is it still effective in classifying modern-day workers? This paper responds to these questions by analysing and critically evaluating the use of ‘business risk-assumption’ as a criterion for the determination of EU employment status. More precisely, in section 2, I revisit the classical paradigm that led to the adoption of this criterion and demonstrate how it has been superseded by recent changes in market structures. In section 3, I show why employment status cannot just be left up to the parties and advocate for the need for an alternative ‘risk’-based criterion that would mitigate the deficiencies of the current framework, precipitating the fair mutualisation of risks between the parties. Finally, in section 4, I present and critically evaluate alternative ‘risk’-related criteria that have been proposed in the literature. After analysing the advantages and disadvantages of each approach, I argue in favour of a classification criterion based on the ‘involuntary assumption of risks’ measured by the ‘inability of a person to spread his risks’. If adopted, the proffered criterion would lead to the expansion of the EU nomen juris of ‘worker’, allowing for the protection of vulnerable quasi-subordinate persons that are excluded from the current EU ‘worker’ definition.
Suggested Citation
Despoina Georgiou, 2022.
"‘Business Risk-Assumption’ as a Criterion for the Determination of EU Employment Status: A Critical Evaluation,"
Industrial Law Journal, Industrial Law Society, vol. 51(1), pages 109-137.
Handle:
RePEc:oup:indlaw:v:51:y:2022:i:1:p:109-137.
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:indlaw:v:51:y:2022:i:1:p:109-137.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/ilj .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.