Article 16, point a), of Article 16, point a), excludes collective agreements within the meaning of Article 1, paragraph 1, of the WCAO. Although a restriction on competition that may result from collective agreements regulating the terms and conditions of employment of salaried workers is often incidental or limited (15), it does not necessarily apply to agreements governing the working conditions of self-employed workers. This is particularly the case for agreements that govern price competition between independents. Conversely, there is no valid reason to grant such broad legal protection (i.e. full immunity from cartel and abuse of dominance rules) when workers negotiate with employers on issues that only indirectly affect their employment or working conditions. Workers (and employers) remain interested in collective bargaining, although what is agreed in areas that do not have a direct and significant impact on employment or working conditions can be verified by the law of the agreements. The employer entered into a recognition agreement with Unite to create a framework for collective bargaining. The agreement provided that formal wage negotiations would take place each year and that all proposed changes to the terms of employment would be negotiated with the union. When a series of wage increases, a Christmas bonus and some unfavourable changes to business conditions were rejected in an advisory vote, the employer took the matter into its own hands. She wrote to all employees, whether they were unionized or not, and made a sum of money saying that they would lose their Christmas bonus if the workers did not accept the new conditions. The employer then wrote again to workers who had not accepted the wage proposal and offered them a 4% pay increase, explaining that dismissal could be a possible outcome if no agreement was reached. A group of workers then lodged an appeal with the labour tribunal and argued that the letters received had twice separately violated their rights under Section 145B OF TULR (C) A.
According to the law, a temporary residence permit is revoked if the legal conditions of work permit are no longer met – for example, if working conditions are less than the collective agreement (including wage conditions). Revocation is mandatory and the reason for the compliance error does not matter. According to a recent ruling by the Court of Appeal for Migration (March 2015), the same strict approach must be applied when a foreign worker applys for a renewed work permit. According to the judgment, an application for an extended work permit should not be accepted if it was found that the conditions of employment under the Foreigners Act were not met during the previous authorization period. However, before looking at these cases, it should be stressed that the legal frameworks of the EU and the United States, however similar, are not identical. In particular, there are no explicit legal provisions in the EU`s legal order equivalent to those of the Clayton Act (33) or the Norris-La Guardia Act (34) which provide an explicit exception for cartels and abuse of dominant position for “unions as long as they act in their own interest and do not combine with non-worker groups”. Despite this difference, I think there are still some parallels to be made. (35) Provisions of a collective agreement between an employer organization and unions representing salaried and self-employed workers, which provide that self-employed workers who, on the basis of an employment contract for commercial services, perform the same work for an employer as workers within the scope of the collective agreement must receive a certain minimum remuneration. : In Albany, the Court held that collective agreements do not fall within the scope of Article 101 of the TFUE where two cumulative conditions are met: (i) they are concluded in the context of collective bargaining between employers and workers (hereafter the first condition) and (ii) they directly contribute to the improvement