Collective bargaining and unresolved "agile work" issues

The discipline of remote working has been characterized from the beginning by a significant participatory presence in collective bargaining, from the European Framework Agreement on Telework of 2002, to its national implementation within the Interconfederal Agreement of 2004, passing through the propulsive role that the bargaining, especially that within the company realities, had regarding the preparatory work that led to the enactment of the law 22 May 2017, n. 81 about the “smart working”. This role could also affect the reform of the discipline, made indispensable because the wide appeal that the agile type, also known as «smart working» anglicism, has had due to the spread of SARS-CoV-19. It is precisely the experimentation throughout the national territory that has rekindled the debate on the subject and stimulated bargaining again with the aim of regulating a «method of execution of the employment relationship» (Article 18, l. 81/2017) which seems to have become an integral part of the current and future organization of work. This contribution aims to investigate the first solutions born in corporate bargaining. The fil rouge that binds the 25 company agreements – selected for the innovativeness of the solutions adopted, for the completeness of the discipline or for the occupational relevance – is the intent to regulate, considering the peculiarities of the workers in force in the individual companies, not simplified smart working, and that is the one that should be resorted when the health emergency will be over – indeed already practiced by someone. Three topical study topics for post-emergency labour law have been identified: access to agile mode, workplace safety and working time flexibility. With respect to the first profile, corporate collective bargaining has expanded the number of workers with priority access to this remote working method, recognizing real rights to smart working in favour of some categories. With respect to the second profile, the agreements have more or less strictly limited the freedom of the agile worker to choose the workplace independently, also with the aim of limiting the employer’s responsibility for health and safety in the workplace, the perimeter of which does not appear sufficiently clear in line with the doctrinal debate on the subject. With respect to the third profile, the contractual practice examined has kept normal working time firm, while variously developing the possibility of placing it flexibly within the working day, abdicating instead the task of fully defining the right to disconnect and, therefore, suitable and mandatory «technical and organizational measures»..

Medienart:	E-Artikel

Erscheinungsjahr:	2021
Erschienen:	2021

Enthalten in:	Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:7
Enthalten in:	Labour & Law Issues - 7(2021), 2, Seite 109-R.130

Sprache:	Englisch ; Italienisch

Beteiligte Personen:	Simone Di Molfetta [VerfasserIn] Regina Mezini [VerfasserIn]

Links:	doi.org [kostenfrei] doaj.org [kostenfrei] labourlaw.unibo.it [kostenfrei] Journal toc [kostenfrei]

Themen:	Corporate collective bargaining Health and safety K Labor systems Law Remote working Smart working Time porosity

doi:	10.6092/issn.2421-2695/14112

funding:
Förderinstitution / Projekttitel:

PPN (Katalog-ID):	DOAJ003133575