IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/indlaw/v51y2022i2p318-345..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Uncertain Future for EU-Level Collective Bargaining: The New Rules of the Game After EPSU

Author

Listed:
  • Manuel Antonio García Muñoz Alhambra

Abstract

The General Court of the European Union (GCEU) in EPSU and Goudriaan vs. Commission and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the subsequent appeal judgment reached an identical conclusion on a key aspect of the system of EU level collective bargaining. The Courts held that Article 155(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) does not impose any obligation on the European Commission to send a social partner agreement to the Council. This is in line with the Commission’s recent interpretation of Article 155(2) TFEU that subordinates the implementation of the European agreements to a positive assessment of their appropriateness. This article critically assesses the GCEU and CJEU rulings in EPSU and argues that they confirm a major break with the praxis of European collective bargaining that will have negative consequences for the social partners’ autonomy and role in the EU. In order to better understand this break, the article examines how and when the Commission changed its approach to European social dialogue, resulting in the new interpretation of Article 155(2) TFEU, and proposes a hypothesis to understand why. The article concludes by describing the consequences of the new reading of Article 155(2) TFEU for the idea of collective autonomy in EU law as well as for the practice of EU level social dialogue and collective bargaining.

Suggested Citation

  • Manuel Antonio García Muñoz Alhambra, 2022. "An Uncertain Future for EU-Level Collective Bargaining: The New Rules of the Game After EPSU," Industrial Law Journal, Industrial Law Society, vol. 51(2), pages 318-345.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:indlaw:v:51:y:2022:i:2:p:318-345.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/indlaw/dwac006
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:2:p:318-345.. 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.