This position is supported by the case-law of the Court of Justice and, as a matter of principle, is also reflected in EU law. According to the court`s continuing importance, the objective of preventing social dumping may in principle constitute an overriding requirement in the public interest which may justify a restriction of fundamental freedoms. This applies both to restrictions imposed by a measure of a Member State (28) and to restrictions imposed by collective actions by workers. (29) Another reason is that the possibility for employers to replace workers with other persons for whom they do not have to apply the working conditions laid down in the collective agreement concerned may considerably weaken the bargaining position of workers. How, for example, could workers cred cred crediently ask for a wage increase if they knew they could be easily and quickly replaced by freelancers who would likely do the same work for lower pay? Conversely, there is no valid reason to grant such extensive legal protection (i.e. full immunity from cartel law) when workers negotiate with employers on matters that only indirectly affect their terms and conditions of employment or work. Workers (and employers) retain an interest in negotiating collective agreements, even if what is agreed on issues that do not directly and significantly affect employment or working conditions can potentially be subject to anti-dominant review. An interpretation of Art. .
Hit enter to search or ESC to close