Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-sjtt6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-14T08:38:34.117Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Protection of the Right to Work Through the European Convention on Human Rights

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2017

Virginia Mantouvalou
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The right to work was until recently under-explored in academic literature and judicial decision-making. Classified often as a social right, it was viewed as a non-justiciable entitlement. Today, as the right to work is sometimes used as a slogan in favour of deregulation of the labour market, as well as a slogan against immigration and unionisation, the analysis of the right to work as part of a labour law agenda is crucial. Against this background, this chapter examines the right to work in the European Convention on Human Rights. Even though the right to work is not explicitly protected in the ECHR, the chapter identifies in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights certain principles that underpin the right to work, which can serve as guidance in the interpretation of existing provisions of the Convention.

Type
Research Article
Information
Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies , Volume 16 , 2014 , pp. 313 - 332
Copyright
Copyright © Centre for European Legal Studies, Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge 2014

References

1 For some literature on these issues, see Murphy, JB, The Moral Economy of Labour (New Haven CT, Yale University Press, 1993)Google Scholar; Arendt, H, The Human Condition (Chicago IL, University of Chicago Press, 1996 [first published in 1958]) distinguishing between work and labourGoogle Scholar; Sennett, R, The Craftsman (London, Penguin, 2009)Google Scholar; Shklar, J, American Citizenship: The Quest for Inclusion (Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press, 1995)Google Scholar.

2 For some recent literature on the right to work, see Mantouvalou, V (ed), The Right to Work—Legal and Philosophical Perspectives (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2014, forthcoming), cited as The Right to Work Google Scholar. See also Mundlak, G, ‘The Right to Work—The Value of Work’ in Barak-Erez, D and Gross, A (eds), Exploring Social Rights: Between Theory and Practice (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2007) 341 Google Scholar; Mundlak, G, ‘The Right to Work: Linking Human Rights and Employment Policy’ (2007) 146 International Labour Review 189 Google Scholar; Schultz, V, ‘Life’s Work’ (2000) 100 Columbia Law Review 1881 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Harvey, P, ‘The Right to Work and Basic Income Guarantees: Competing or Complementary Goals?’ (2005) 2 Rutgers Journal of Law and Urban Policy 8 Google Scholar.

3 Hepple, B, ‘A Right to Work?’ (1981) 10 Industrial Law Journal 65 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Nickel, J, ‘Is There a Human Right to Employment?’ (1978–79) X Philosophical Quarterly 149 Google Scholar. On social rights, see Gearty, C and Mantouvalou, V, Debating Social Rights (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2011)Google Scholar.

5 Elster, J, ‘Is There (or Should There Be) A Right to Work?’ in Gutmann, A (ed), Democracy and the Welfare State (Princeton NJ, Princeton University Press, 1988) 53 Google Scholar.

6 For an overview of problems at work in Europe, see Countouris, N and Freedland, M (eds), Resocialising Europe in a Time of Crisis (Cambridge, CUP, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the right to work, see Mantouvalou, The Right to Work (n 2 above).

7 Council of Europe, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, CETS No 194.

8 See R O’Connell, ‘The Right to Work in the ECHR’ [2012] European Human Rights Law Review 176.

9 Mantouvalou, V, ‘Labour Rights in the European Convention on Human Rights: An Intellectual Justification for an Integrated Approach to Interpretation’ (2013) 13 Human Rights Law Review 529 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 There is much scholarship on these issues. See, for instance, Davidov, G and Langille, B (eds), The Idea of Labour Law (Oxford, OUP, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Conaghan, J, Fischl, RM and Klare, K (eds), Labour Law in an Era of Globalization (Oxford, OUP, 2002)Google Scholar.

11 Some excellent examples include Ewing, K and Hendy, J, ‘The Dramatic Implications of Demir and Baykara ’ (2010) 39 Industrial Law Journal 2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hepple, B, ‘Introduction’ in Hepple, B (ed), Social and Labour Rights in a Global Context (Cambridge, CUP, 2002) 1, at 16Google Scholar; Fenwick, C and Novitz, T, ‘Conclusion: Regulating to Protect Workers’ Human Rights’ in Fenwick, C and Novitz, T (eds), Human Rights at Work: Perspectives on Law and Regulation (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2010) 587–88Google Scholar; Leary, VA, ‘The Paradox of Workers’ Rights as Human Rights’ in Compa, L and Diamond, S (eds), Human Rights, Labour Rights and International Trade (Philadelphia PA, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2003) 22 Google Scholar; Mundlak, G, ‘Labor Rights and Human Rights: Why Don’t the Two Tracks Meet?’ (2012) 34 Comparative Labor Law and Policy Journal 237 Google Scholar; Compa, L, ‘Solidarity and Human Rights’ (2009) 18 New Labor Forum 38 Google Scholar.

12 Collins, H, ‘Theories of Rights as Justifications for Labour Law’ in Davidov, G and Langille, B (eds), The Idea of Labour Law (Oxford, OUP, 2011) 137 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kolben, K, ‘Labor Rights as Human Rights?’ (2010) 50 Virginia Journal of International Law 449 Google Scholar; Youngdahl, J, ‘Solidarity First: Labor Rights Are Not the Same as Human Rights’ (2009) 18 New Labor Forum 31 Google Scholar.

13 Mantouvalou, V, ‘Are Labour Rights Human Rights?’ (2012) 3 European Labour Law Journal 151 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 For an example of the positivistic approach, see Ssenyonjo, M, ‘Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: An Examination of State Obligations’ in Joseph, S and McBeth, A (eds), Research Handbook on International Human Rights Law (Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2010) 36 Google Scholar.

15 See the literature in nn 11–12 above.

16 Raz, J, Morality of Freedom (Oxford, OUP, 1986)Google Scholar.

17 On justifications of the right, see the literature above, nn 1, 2 and 5.

18 Arthurs, H, ‘Constitutionalizing the Right of Workers to Organize, Bargain and Strike: The Sight of One Shoulder Shrugging’ (2009–10) 15 Canadian Labour and Employment Law Journal 373 Google Scholar; A Bogg, ‘Only Fools and Horses: Some Sceptical Reflections on the Right to Work’ in The Right to Work (n 2 above).

19 Art 4.

20 Art 11.

21 Art 14.

22 Collins, H and Mantouvalou, V, ‘ Redfearn v UK: Political Association and Dismissal’ (2013) 73 Modern Law Review 909 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mantouvalou, V, ‘Human Rights and Unfair Dismissal: Private Acts in Public Spaces’ (2008) 71 Modern Law Review 912 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 Vilnes and Others v Norway, App Nos 52806/09 and 22703/10, Judgment of 5 December 2013.

24 Ewing and Hendy, above n 11; N Countouris and M Freedland, ‘Injunctions, Cyanamid, and the Corrosion of the Right to Strike in the UK’ (2011) European Labour Law Journal 489.

25 Collins, H, ‘The Protection of Civil Liberties in the Workplace’ (2006) 69 Modern Law Review 619 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McCrea, R, ‘Religion in the Workplace: Eweida and Others v United Kingdom ’ (2014) 77 Modern Law Review 277 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 Mantouvalou, V, ‘Servitude and Forced Labour in the 21st Century: The Human Rights of Domestic Workers’ (2006) 35 Industrial Law Journal 395 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27 For further analysis of the right to work under the ESC and the EUCFR, see Ashiagbor, D, ‘The Right to Work’, in de Búrca, G, de Witte, B (eds), Social Rights in Europe (Oxford, OUP, 2005) 241 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; O’Cinneide, C, ‘The Right to Work in International Human Rights Law in Mantouvalou, The Right to Work, n 2 above, for detailed analysis of the ESC and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural RightsGoogle Scholar.

28 On the monitoring mechanisms and procedures of social rights documents, see Langford, M (ed), Social Rights Jurisprudence—Emerging Trends in International and Comparative Law (Cambridge, CUP, 2008)Google Scholar.

29 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, GA Res 2200A (XXI), 21 UN GAOR Supp (No 16) at 49, UN Doc A/6316 (1966), 993 UNTS 3.

30 See, generally, Langford, M and King, J, ‘Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’ in Langford, M (ed), Social Rights Jurisprudence (Cambridge, CUP, 2008) 477 Google Scholar.

31 UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No 18 (E/C.12/GC/186) February 2006, paras 7–8.

32 Council of Europe, European Social Charter of 1961, CETS No 35; Revised European Social Charter of 1966, CETS No 163.

33 See, generally, Alston, P, ‘Assessing the Strengths and Weaknesses of the European Social Charter’s Supervisory Mechanism’ in de Búrca, G and de Witte, B (eds), Social Rights in Europe (Oxford, OUP, 2005) 45 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34 See, generally, Peers, S, Hervey, T, Kenner, J and Ward, A (eds), The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights—A Commentary (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

35 On the Italian approach, see M D’Antona, ‘The Right to Work in the Italian Constitution and in the European Union’, Centro Studi di Diritto del Lavoro Europeo ‘Massimo D’Antona’, Working Paper No 1/2002, available at: http://aei.pitt.edu/606/1/n1_dantona.pdf. On the French approach, see Olivier, SR, ‘The French Approach to the Right to Work: The Potential of a Constitutional Right in Ordinary Courts’ in The Right to Work, n 2 aboveGoogle Scholar.

36 See the references above nn 17–19. See also O’Connell, above n 8; and Dorssemont, F, Lorcher, K and Schomann, I (eds), The European Convention on Human Rights and the Employment Relation (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2013)Google Scholar.

37 See, for instance, Sidabras and Dziautas v Lithuania, App Nos 55480/00 and 59330/00, Judgment of 27 July 2004, discussed below (text to n 54).

38 See, for instance, Siliadin v France, App No 73316/01, Judgment of 26 July 2005, discussed below.

39 See, for instance, Niemietz v Germany, App No 13710/88, Judgment of 16 December 1992, discussed below (text to nn 88–89).

40 See, for instance, IB v Greece, App No 552/10, Judgment of 3 October 2013, discussed below.

41 Letsas, G, A Theory of Interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights (Oxford, OUP, 2009) 126 ffGoogle Scholar. See also O’Neill, O, ‘The Dark Side of Human Rights’ (2005) 81 International Affairs 427 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42 M Freedland and N Kountouris, ‘The Right to Decent Work in a European Comparative Perspective’ in The Right to Work; A Bogg, ‘Only Fools and Horses: Some Skeptical Reflections on the Right to Work’ in The Right to Work, n 2 above.

43 For analysis of positive obligations under the ECHR, see Mowbray, A, The Development of Positive Obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights by the European Court of Human Rights (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2004)Google Scholar.

44 See, for instance, Rantsev v Cyprus and Russia, App No25965/04, Judgment of 7 January 2010.

45 Davies, P and Freedland, M, Kahn-Freund’s Labour and the Law (London, Stevens, 1983) 18 Google Scholar.

46 Art 1 of the ECHR provides as follows: ‘The High Contracting Parties shall secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in Section I of this Convention’.

47 Wilson and Palmer v United Kingdom, App Nos 30668/96, 30671/96 and 30678/96, Judgment of 2 July 2002; IB v Greece, App No 552/10; Judgment of 3 October 2013.

48 On basic material conditions and the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment under the Convention, see, for instance, MSS v Belgium and Greece, App No 30696/09, Grand Chamber Judgment of 21 January 2011. See further Tulkens, F, ‘The Contribution of the European Convention on Human Rights to the Poverty Issue in Times of Crisis’ (2013) 2 Cyprus Human Rights Law Review 122 Google Scholar.

49 See Sennett, R, Respect (London, Penguin, 2003) ch4, ‘The Shame of Dependence’Google Scholar.

50 Shklar, J, American Citizenship: The Quest for Inclusion (Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press, 1995) 1 Google Scholar.

51 Young, James and Webster v United Kingdom, App Nos 7601/76, 7806/77, Judgment of 13 August 1981.

52 Young, James and Webster, ibid, para 55. This has been repeated in subsequent case law. See Sorensen and Rasmussen v Denmark, App Nos 52562/99 and 52620/99, Judgment of 11 January 2006.

53 See further, KVW Stone, ‘A Right to Work in the United States: Historical Antecedents and Contemporary Possibilities’ in The Right to Work, n 2 above.

54 Sidabras and Dziautas v Lithuania, App Nos 55480/00 and 59330/00, Judgment of 27 July 2004. For analysis of the case, see V Mantouvalou, ‘Work and Private Life: Sidabras and Dziautas v Lithuania’ (2005) European Law Review 573.

55 Sidabras, ibid, para 48.

56 Ibid, para 47.

57 Mantouvalou, above n 9.

58 On minimum wage, see Nerva and Others v United Kingdom, App No 42295/98, Judgment of 24 September 2002.

59 See, for instance, Evaldsson and Others v Sweden, App No 75252/01, Judgment of 13 February 2007. See further Olsson, P Herzfeld, ‘Every Natural or Legal Person is Entitled to the Peaceful Enjoyment of His or Her Possessions: Article 1, Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights’ in Dorssemont, et al (eds) The European Convention on Human Rights and the Employment Relation (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2013) 381 at 400 ffGoogle Scholar; and Novitz, T, ‘Labour Rights and Property Rights: Implications for (and Beyond) Redundancy Payments and Pensions?’ (2012) 41 Industrial Law Journal 136 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

60 Stummer v Austria, App No 37452/02, Grand Chamber Judgment of 7 July 2011.

61 Stummer, ibid, para 93.

62 Stummer, ibid, para 95; dissenting opinion, para 1.

63 Judge Tulkens, dissenting opinion, para 7.

64 Joint partly dissenting opinion of Judges Tulkens, Kovler, Gyulumyan, Spielmann, Popovic, Malinverni and Pardalos, para 10.

65 I develop this further in V Mantouvalou, ‘The Right to Non-Exploitative Work’ in The Right to Work (n 2 above).

66 As a starting point, see Wertheimer, Alan and Zwolinski, Matt, ‘Exploitation’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2013 edn), Zalta, Edward N (ed), plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2013/entries/exploitation/ Google Scholar See also Wertheimer, A, Exploitation (Princeton NJ, Princeton University Press, 1996)Google ScholarPubMed.

67 See Marx, K, Capital—A New Abridgment (Oxford, OUP, 1999) 183 ffGoogle Scholar. See also Cohen, GA, ‘Karl Marx and the Withering Away of Social Science’ (1972) 1 Philosophy and Public Affairs 182 Google Scholar; Wolff, J, ‘Marx and Exploitation’ (1999) 3 Journal of Ethics 105 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

68 See the discussion in Mundlak, G, ‘The Right to Work—The Value of Work’ in BarakErez, and Gross, (eds), Exploring Social Rights (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2010) 341 at 345Google Scholar.

69 There are limitations to this freedom. See, for instance, M Radin, J, Contested Commodities (Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press, 2001)Google Scholar.

70 This is further developed in V Mantouvalou, ‘The Right to Non-Exploitative Work’ in The Right to Work (n 2 above).

71 R (on the application of Reilly and Another) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2013] UKSC 68 (30 October 2013), para 81.

72 Siliadin v France, App No 73316/01, Judgment of 26 July 2005.

73 Siliadin, ibid, para 126.

74 CN v United Kingdom, App No 4239/08, Judgment of 13 November 2012.

75 Rantsev v Cyprus and Russia, App No 25965/04, Judgment of 7 January 2010.

76 Anderson, B, ‘Migration, Immigration Controls and the Fashioning of Precarious Workers’ (2010) 24 Work, Employment and Society 300 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

77 CN, above n 74, para 80.

78 Mantouvalou, V, ‘Human Rights for Precarious Workers: The Legislative Precariousness of Domestic Workers’ (2012) 34 Comparative Labor Law and Policy Journal 133 Google Scholar.

79 On the role of labour law in creating legislative precariousness, see Mantouvalou, ibid; on the role of criminal law, see Guilfoyle, D, ‘Transnational Criminal Law as a Governance Strategy in the Global Labour Market: Criminalizing Migration from Below’ (2010) 29 Refugee Survey Quarterly 185 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

80 See generally, Paz-Fuchs, A, Welfare to Work—Conditional Rights in Social Policy (Oxford, OUP, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; A Paz-Fuchs, ‘A Right to Work—A Duty to Work’ in The Right to Work (n 2 above).

81 Van der Mussele v Belgium, App No 1989/80, Judgment of 23 November 1983.

82 Schuitemaker v Netherlands, App No 15906/08, Decision of 4 May 2010.

83 ibid.

84 See further, E Dermine, ‘Activation Policies for the Unemployed and the International Human Rights Case Law on the Prohibition of Forced Labour’ [2013] European Journal of Human Rights 746.

85 On the Marxist approach towards legal rights more generally, see Collins, H, Marxism and the Law (Oxford, OUP, 1982) 142 ffGoogle Scholar.

86 For example, the narrow formulation of the right to property in Art 1 of Protocol 1 and the prohibition of discrimination in Art 14 both suggest this.

87 H Collins, ‘Is there a Human Right to Work?’ in The Right to Work, n 2 above.

88 Niemietz v Germany, App No 13710/88, Judgment of 16 December 1992.

89 Niemietz, ibid, para 29.

90 See Sidabras, n 54 above, para 43.

91 See also Campagnano v Italy, App No 77955/01, Judgment of 23 March 2006.

92 Pettit, P, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government (Oxford, OUP, 1999) 52 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

93 Davies and Freedland, above n 45.

94 Pettit, above n 92, 57.

95 See Redfearn v United Kingdom, App No 47335/06, Judgment of 6 November 2012.

96 Smith and Grady v United Kingdom, App Nos 33985/96, 33986/96, Judgment of 27 September 1999. See also Lustig-Prean and Beckett v United Kingdom, App Nos 31417/96 and 32377/96, Judgment of 27 September 1999.

97 Schüth v Germany, App No1620/03, Judgment of 23 September 2010. Cf Obst v Germany, App No 425/03, Judgment of 23 September 2010.

98 Vogt v Germany, App No 17851/91, Judgment of 2 September 1996.

99 Redfearn v United Kingdom, App No 47335/06, Judgment of 6 November 2012.

100 IB v Greece, App No 552/10, Judgment of 3 October 2013.

101 On HIV/AIDS stigmatisation at work, see the ILO Recommendation Concerning HIV and AIDS and the World of Work (2010), No 200, which the ECtHR took into account in its ruling. See also Hoffmann v South African Airways, CCT17/00, [2000] ZACC 17.

102 See above n 14.

103 See G Letsas, A Theory of Interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights, above n 41.

104 Freedland and Kountouris; Bogg in The Right to Work (n 2 above).

105 The Court of Justice of the EU has had to address this type of issue in the Viking and Laval line of cases. See Barnard, C, ‘ Viking and Laval: An Introduction’ (2007–08) 10 Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies 463 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Davies, ACL, ‘One Step Forward Two Steps Back? The Viking and Laval cases in the ECJ’ (2008) 37 Industrial Law Journal 126 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Novitz, T, ‘A Human Rights Analysis of the Viking and Laval Judgments’ (2008) 10 Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies 541 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

106 Mundlak, G, ‘The Third Function of Labour Law: Distributing Labour Market Opportunities among Workers’ in Davidov, G and Langille, B (eds), The Idea of Labour Law (Oxford, OUP, 2011) 315 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Davies, ACL, ‘Identifying “Exploitative Compromises”: The Role of Labour Law in Resolving Disputes Between Workers’ (2012) 65 Current Legal Problems 269 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

107 Letsas, G, ‘Rescuing Proportionality’ in Cruft, R, Liao, SM and Renzo, M (eds), Philosophical Foundations of Human Rights (Oxford, OUP, 2014, forthcoming)Google Scholar.

108 Hepple, above n 3, 82–83.