Regulation 2.3 of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC, 2006) requires States to regulate ‘hours of work or hours of rest’. Listing three non-equivalent workweek standards (48-72-91), the regulation empowers Flag States to select the applicable norms. The study reviews the choices of Flag States when enacting working time standards applicable to their fleet under national law. In the overwhelming majority of cases, States adopt the working standard that is least favourable to workers. The general adoption of standards allowing up to a 91-hour workweek - the European Union Member States not being an exception - suggests a global alignment of regulators with the interests of capital and a disregard for the principles of labour law, which aim to protect the weaker party to the contract, in this case, the seafarer. Such a result indicates a governance imbalance at both international and national levels. Consequently, decent working time principles are disregarded, allowing unsafe and unhealthy working time conditions at sea to persist.

Attendance bonus systems present a complex challenge in contemporary employment law, balancing legitimate business interests in workforce reliability against fundamental anti-discrimination principles. This article examines the evolving legal landscape through comparative analysis of two European jurisdictions representing distinct enforcement approaches: the Czech Republic, where administrative authorities identify discriminatory practices despite the absence of binding judicial precedent; and Slovenia, where landmark Supreme Court and Administrative Court decisions have established clear precedents distinguishing business performance bonuses from individual performance bonuses and prohibiting attendance-based reductions to collective rewards. The analysis, grounded in CJEU principles from HK Danmark and the recent Pauni judgment, reveals that both jurisdictions recognise that blanket attendance bonus policies without appropriate accommodations constitute unlawful indirect discrimination, particularly affecting disabled employees, pregnant women, and parents. Furthermore, emerging research demonstrates that attendance bonus systems often encourage dysfunctional presenteeism, undermining the productivity objectives such policies seek to achieve. The article argues that while operational efficiency represents a legitimate business objective, courts and regulatory authorities increasingly require employers to demonstrate that attendance-based reward systems are proportionate, necessary, and cannot be achieved through less discriminatory means.

This article analyses Section 63(1)(f) of the Slovak Labour Code, adopted in 2021, which authorises dismissal once an employee has reached the age of 65 and the statutory pension age, without requiring an individual assessment. Although its operation has been suspended pending constitutional review, the provision raises fundamental concerns under Slovak constitutional guarantees, ILO Convention No. 158, and EU equality law, particularly Directive 2000/78/EC and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The analysis reveals that an automatic age threshold constitutes direct age discrimination, fails the proportionality test under Article 6(1) of the Directive, and contravenes the Convention's requirement of a valid, work-related reason for termination. Empirical evidence further undermines its rationale: compulsory exits do not improve youth employment and risk abrupt income loss. The article concludes that Section 63(1)(f) is incompatible with European and international standards and should be repealed or redesigned with individualised safeguards.

In recent years, terms like platform work, gig work and cloud work have sparked a debate amongst labour lawyers and lawmakers. Even though the circumvention of traditional employment relationships is not a new phenomenon, technological change and the increasing flexibility of work put previously established standards on fair wages and just working conditions anew at stake. Trade Unions have traditionally played a key role in protecting those whose livelihoods depend on providing labour for others. A closer look at the existing legal frameworks in Austria and Germany shows that solo self-employed persons, meaning workers who do not have an employment contract and do not employ others, can benefit only to a very limited extent from the capacity of trade unions to bargain collectively, which is a critical instrument to ensure fair working conditions, including fair wages. This article argues that the European human rights standards require national legislators to take active steps in ensuring the right to bargain collectively for every person in need. In section I, we will start by introducing the central concepts of our analysis and discuss the extent to which the legal frameworks in Austria and Germany allow for collective bargaining on behalf of solo self-employed persons. In section II, we will look at several layers of human rights protection at the European level, with a focus on the personal scope of the right to collective representation. In the final section, we will address the interplay between human rights standards and EU law, before concluding with our recommendations for domestic legal change in Austria and Germany.

Unlike temporary agency work, subcontracting has not been addressed directly by EU law. Certainly, the posting of workers has strong connections with subcontracting, and there are some rules in several Directives that impose obligations and even liabilities for the undertakings involved in subcontracting chains. However, there is no dedicated legal framework for subcontracting with the aim of protecting workers’ rights. This article makes proposals for legislative action at the EU level in order to address the challenges posed by subcontracting, which is often used as a way to reduce labour costs and circumvent labour law. Extending the principle of equal treatment, social clauses included in collective agreements and particular rules on liabilities seem crucial, but there are other potential measures that need to be considered.

This article considers the reasoning and importance of the UK Supreme Court's decision in the case of Mercer . Fiona Mercer had disciplinary action taken against her, resulting in her suspension from work but not her dismissal, due to her involvement in industrial action. This largely progressive decision highlights the lack of protection in UK domestic law for workers who have action short of dismissal taken against them in such circumstances, and its failure to protect workers’ convention rights under Article 11. This article considers the reasoning of the case in detail and discusses why each of the appellate courts reached a different decision when applying their duties under the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) to the facts. It concludes that the HRA offers a lack of protection where there is a lacuna in the law rather than one specific offending provision that can either be interpreted in a convention-compliant manner or declared as incompatible.

Farmer protests have characterised much of the debate on climate and the environment in the EU in recent years. The protests and the European Commission′s subsequent rollback on environmental requirements for farming have cast doubt on the viability of the European Green Deal (EGD). Work on farms is inherently intertwined with nature. Climate change—through rising temperatures and extreme weather events—is already impacting working conditions. At the same time, agriculture is responsible for 11% of greenhouse gas emissions in the EU and is a major cause of biodiversity loss. Most research on the EGD has tended to focus on energy-related sectors, with comparatively less research on what it means for sectors like agriculture. This article applies a social law lens to legislation on agriculture in the EU and asks: what does the EGD mean for those who work in agriculture, and, to what extent is a just transition envisioned for the sector? The article is situated within a broader turn in labour law scholarship to examine the labour-nature nexus. It identifies social measures within the EGD, the Farm to Fork Strategy and the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), with a focus on two disadvantaged groups: smallholder farmers and farmworkers. The article argues that there are elements of a just transition in current EU policies and legislation on agriculture, such as income support provisions, targeted measures for young farmers, and the introduction of a social conditionality clause. However, the social dimension of these instruments require further development to strengthen the connection between social concerns on the one hand, and economic and environmental concerns on the other. More fundamentally, the article points to a lack of a coherent vision of what a just transition in agriculture should entail—particularly in terms of its economic model and the position of those most affected, including smallholder farmers and farmworkers. This gap may help in explaining some of the underlying reasons for the farmer protests.

Domestic workers undertake vital reproductive labour across Europe, yet their rights have rarely been considered by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). This comment critically examines the CJEU's judgment in Loredas , which found that the exemption of private domestic employers from the general obligation to record working time is contrary to EU law. We argue that this is a welcome step towards recognising domestic work as work ‘like any other'. However, the CJEU's suggestion that derogations in respect of part-time or overtime work could apply to the domestic work sector, on account of its special features, is a retrograde move and could reinforce workers’ structural vulnerability to labour exploitation.

The article addresses a significant judgment by the Czech Supreme Court in the area of Transfer of Undertaking (TUPE). In this ruling, the Supreme Court rejected the Transfer of Undertaking as a justifiable reason for differential wage treatment. Based on the decision, transferees have a two-month period following the transfer to harmonise employment terms for all employees to prevent unequal treatment. The only exception applies to transfers of rights and obligations arising from collective bargaining agreements. Case note: Czech Supreme Court Case No. 21 Cdo 2559/2023 dated 29 August 2024