10.6092/issn.1561-8048/15222
This paper aims to ask whether the social dimension of the European Union still exists in a period of two crises (the pandemic and the war in Ukraine), which have strongly been hitting the economies and societies all over the world. To understand the EU’s reaction to both the emergencies it is necessary to trace the path of EU labour law from the beginning: the story of the European Union in the social field is a story of progressive enforcement of its competencies but also of continuous stops and goes form the political point of view.
application/pdf
1561-8048
15222
1
en
Massimiliano Delfino
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Italian Labour Law e-Journal
Evolution of EU labour law
Social Europe in times of crises: what lessons can be gleaned from the past?
Text.Serial.Journal
https://illej.unibo.it/
15
Miscellaneous
2022-07-21
2022-07-16
2022-07-21
2022-07-21
133-141
ILLeJ
Massimiliano Delfino
2022/07/21
10.6092/issn.1561-8048/15222
133
University of Naples Federico II
1561-8048
1
Evolution of EU labour law
en
141
Social Europe in times of crises: what lessons can be gleaned from the past?
https://illej.unibo.it/article/download/15222/14469
15
Social Europe in times of crises: what lessons can be gleaned                         Italian Labour Law e-Journal
from the past?                                                                               Issue 1, Vol. 15 (2022)
Massimiliano Delfino                                                                               ISSN 1561-8048
delfino@unina.it                                                    https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/15222




     Social Europe in times of crises: what lessons can be
                   gleaned from the past?
                                           Massimiliano Delfino*

 1. Starting from current events: the social reaction of the European Union to the war in
 Ukraine. 2. The "other" emergency: the pandemic and labour law. 3. The three phases of
 social Europe. In particular, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and
 the "chiaroscuro" technique. 4. The pale social colouring of Europe in the 2010s: Brexit and
 the global economic-financial crisis. 5. The hopes of the Charter, the revisited social dialogue,
 and the pending "accounts": far from sunset?

                                                         Abstract

     This paper aims to ask whether the social dimension of the European Union still exists
     in a period of two crises (the pandemic and the war in Ukraine), which have strongly
     been hitting the economies and societies all over the world. To understand the EU’s reaction
     to both the emergencies it is necessary to trace the path of EU labour law from the beginning:
     the story of the European Union in the social field is a story of progressive enforcement of its
     competencies but also of continuous stops and goes form the political point of view.


     Keywords: War, Pandemic, Social Field, Evolution of EU labour law.




 1. Starting from current events: the social reaction of the European Union to the war
 in Ukraine

    This paper aims to ask whether the social dimension of the European Union still exists in
 a period of double crisis, which has strongly been hitting the economies and societies all over
 the world. While a few months ago, there was only a pandemic, now there is also the war in
 Ukraine, and this is the starting point because the social dimension of Europe is also present
 in this circumstance. Nevertheless, it is not possible to understand the EU’s reaction to both
 emergencies without tracing the path of EU labour law from the beginning: as it will be evident the
 story of the European Union in the social field is a story of progressive enforcement of its
 competencies but also of continuous stops and goes form the political point of view. Therefore, this
 is a story to be told even though shortly to comprehend the EU’s attitude towards the war in Ukraine
 and the pandemic.


 *Full Professor of labour law, University of Naples Federico II. This essay has been submitted to a double-
 blind peer review.
    Massimiliano Delfino                                                              Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                             Issue 1, Vol. 15 (2022)
                                                                                             Section: Miscellaneous



    The war was the unfortunate occasion on which the Union first used Directive 2001/55
on minimum standards for giving temporary protection in the event of displaced persons
(estimates indicate that a figure between 2.5 and 6.5 million displaced by the armed conflict,
from 1.2 to 3.2 million of whom could ask for international protection). Perhaps few people
know it contains a 'social soul'. In fact, according to Article 12 of the directive, "the Member
States shall authorise… persons enjoying temporary protection to engage in employed or
self-employed activities, subject to rules applicable to the profession, as well as in activities
such as educational opportunities for adults, vocational training, and practical workplace
experience". In addition, "the general law in force in the Member States applicable to
remuneration, access to social security systems relating to employed or self-employed
activities and other conditions of employment shall apply". A Council decision of March 2,
2022 implemented the directive by applying temporary protection to three categories of
people: Ukrainian citizens residing in Ukraine on February 24, 2022; third-country nationals
or stateless persons legally residing in Ukraine; family members of the two previous
categories.
    That would have been an unexpected result a few years ago due to an emergency of
exceptional gravity but not entirely surprising. The Union passed that directive more than
twenty years ago in the aftermath of the war in the former Yugoslavia.
    If we stopped at this point, one could say that Europe is comparable to a grey afternoon
but a little less grey than the pandemic. If the war in Ukraine and the pandemic are at the
same level in gravity, from a social point of view, the European Union's reaction seems more
intense than that experienced during the pandemic. Maybe that could be defined as a ray of
sunshine on a grey afternoon. I will return to this at the end of the paper.


2. The "other" emergency: the pandemic and labour law.

   Seeing the glass as half full, one must remember the other emergency, the pandemic, to
which social Europe has responded with much less speed than to the conflict, at least on a
purely social level, understood in a broad sense, which also includes health protection. Article
222, par. 1 TFEU provides for a solidarity clause under which the European Union is obliged
to support any Member State which is the victim of a terrorist attack or natural disaster,
should the State request it.1 However, the Member States never invoked the rule, not even
during the pandemic. The reasons for not using the tool can be manifold. The main one is
perhaps that the States still believe that they can also manage emergencies autonomously.
Therefore, it is a field for the Union to intervene in social matters, which for now has
remained only a potential action.
   Furthermore, the Union intervened in the free movement of persons obviously in the
opposite direction to what it is currently doing for the war in Ukraine, using the exceptions
provided for the first time by Article 45 TFEU for public health reasons. In fact, with the


1In fact, the Article provides that “the Union shall mobilise all the instruments at its disposal, including the
military resources made available by the Member States to … assist a Member State in its territory, at the request
of its political authorities, in the event of a natural or man-made disaster”.

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/15222                                                                     134
    Massimiliano Delfino                                                                         Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                                        Issue 1, Vol. 15 (2022)
                                                                                                        Section: Miscellaneous



Communication of March 16, 2020, the Commission recommended temporarily restricting
non-essential travel from third countries to the European Union and suggested to the
Member States concerned to discourage the journey of their citizens and long-term residents
outside the EU.2 Restrictive measures inevitably also affected workers, although it is helpful
to report a Communication from the Commission of March 2020,3 which attempted to
reduce the effects of the pandemic on the freedom of movement of workers in critical
professions.4 Furthermore, the same source urges the Member States to establish rapid
procedures for crossing borders with a regular flow of cross-border and posted workers,
suggesting some possible solutions.5 The rationale of the provisions mentioned above is
evident. On the one hand, it was necessary to guarantee the movement on the territory of
the Union for those workers linked to the health emergency, and, on the other, it was
appropriate to facilitate as much as possible movement for the cross-border workers. They
faced daily activity from one Member State to another.
   Instead, again during health emergencies, the European Union, in the field of free
competition, has focused attention on the needs of businesses by tempering the rigour in
matters of state aid and therefore support for businesses.6 In addition, on the internal market
matters, a communication from the European Competition Network was issued7 that
suggested maintaining strict principles in the field of competition law even in a phase in
which companies and the economy, in general, were in a state of profound crisis. The EU
authorities could intervene if abnormal increases in the prices of necessities (such as
protective masks and disinfectant devices) had occurred or if some companies had taken
advantage of the situation to conclude anticompetitive agreements or abuse a dominant




2 Both acts were passed by the European Council on 18 March 2020.
3 Communication from the Commission 30 March 2020 - Guidelines concerning the exercise of the free
movement of workers during COVID-19 outbreak 2020/C 102 I/03.
4 Point 2 of the 2020 Communication contains the list of these workers: Health professionals including

paramedical professionals; Personal care workers in health services, including care workers for children, persons
with disabilities and the elderly; Scientists in health-related industries; Workers in pharmaceutical and medical
devices industry; Workers involved in the supply of goods, in particular for the supply chain of medicines,
medical supplies, medical devices and personal protective equipment, including in their installation and
maintenance; Information and Communications Technology Professionals; Information and Communications
Technicians and other technicians for essential maintenance of the equipment; Engineering professionals such
as energy technicians, engineers and electrical engineering technicians; Persons working on critical or otherwise
essential infrastructures; Science and engineering associate professionals; Protective services workers;
Firefighters/Police Officers/Prison Guards/Security Guards/ Civil Protection Personnel; Food manufacturing
and processing and related trades and maintenance workers; Food and related products machine operators
(includes food production operator); Transport workers; Fishermen; Staff of public institutions, including
international organisations, in critical function.
5 According to point 3 of the 2020 Communication, “this may be done for instance and where appropriate, by

means of dedicated lanes at the border for such workers or with specific stickers recognised by the neighbouring
Member States to facilitate their access to the territory of the Member State of employment”.
6 Through the restrictive agreements on competition, provided for by Article 101 TFEU. On these profiles see

Arena A., Emergenza e libertà fondamentali nel mercato unico, in Staiano S. (ed.), Nel ventesimo anno del Terzo Millennio.
Sistemi politici, istituzioni economiche e produzione del diritto al cospetto della pandemia da Covid-19, Editoriale scientifica,
Napoli, 2020, 357 ff.
7 The so-called European Competition Network or “ECN”, an informal group that brings together the various

national antitrust authorities of the European Union and the European Commission.

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/15222                                                                                 135
    Massimiliano Delfino                                                                            Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                                           Issue 1, Vol. 15 (2022)
                                                                                                           Section: Miscellaneous



position.8 As can be seen, even in a pandemic phase, the needs of businesses were considered,
if not prevalent, at least equal to those of public health.
    One must focus on a temporary measure on the unemployment risk side. The reference
is to the so-called SURE (Support to mitigate Unemployment Risks in an Emergency) governed by
Regulation (EU) 2020/672 of May 19, 2020, which is a tool to allow the Union to provide
financial assistance in the form of loans to the affected Member States.9 This tool's
foundation is in Article 122, para. 2, TFEU, according to which "where a Member State is in
difficulties or is seriously threatened with severe difficulties caused by natural disasters or
exceptional occurrences beyond its control, the Council, on a proposal from the
Commission, may grant, under certain conditions, Union financial assistance to the Member
State concerned". Therefore, SURE has been made available to the Member States that need
to use significant financial means to combat the economic and social consequences of the
pandemic and guarantees additional financial assistance, thus complementing the national
measures and grants usually paid for these purposes under the European social fund.
Specifically, this instrument acts as a second line of defence to finance working time
reduction schemes, helping the Member States to preserve jobs and, in so doing, protect
employed and self-employed workers from the risk of unemployment and loss of income.
    Moreover, there is also the NRP (National Recovery and Resilience Plan), an Italian
measure requested by the Union because the Next Generation EU programme provides
enormous resources to relieve the Union's economy from the pandemic. This plan aims to
incentivise and stimulate a fair and just transition towards a sustainable economy and fight
against inequalities: gender equality, protection and enhancement of young people and
overcoming territorial gaps. Regarding specifically labour law, one part of the plan primarily
aims to: increase the employment rate, facilitate work transitions, and provide people with
adequate training; reduce the mismatch of skills; increase the quantity and quality of continuing
education programs for the employed and unemployed. To this end, two reforms are
provided: one of the Active Labour and Training Policies and another to combat undeclared
work. In addition to the reforms, five different investment measures are envisaged: the
strengthening of the Employment Centres; incentives for the creation of female businesses;
the design of a gender equality certification system; the strengthening of the dual system; and
the strengthening of the universal civil service. It is necessary to wait and see if and how Italy
will use these resources from the European Union.




8 Furthermore, the authorities have expressed certain openness, providing for the possibility of exemption for
the necessary and temporary agreements concluded between companies and aimed at supporting the supply
and fair distribution of goods during the state of crisis linked to the Covid-19 pandemic that otherwise would
be prohibited on the basis of competition law. It can be read in this communication that indeed, national
antitrust authorities will not actively intervene against necessary and temporary measures put in place in order
to avoid a shortage of supply.
9 On SURE see, among others, Giubboni S., In uno spirito si solidarietà tra gi Stati Membri…. Noterella polemica sulla

proposta di direttiva a spirit of solidarity between the Member States… Noterella polemica sulla proposta della Commissione
d’una cosiddetta Cassa integrazione europea, in Rivista di Diritto della Sicurezza Sociale, 2020, 421 ff.; Riccobono A., Un
“salto di specie” per l’UE: la solidarietà europea alla prova della crisi pandemica, in Garilli A. (ed.), Dall’emergenza al rilancio.
Lavoro e diritti sociali alla prova della pandemia, Giappichelli, Torino, 2020, 201-204.

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/15222                                                                                     136
 Massimiliano Delfino                                                    Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                Issue 1, Vol. 15 (2022)
                                                                                Section: Miscellaneous



3. The three phases of social Europe. In particular, the Charter of Fundamental
Rights of the European Union and the "chiaroscuro" technique.

    It is now appropriate to leave current events aside and take a step back, going to the
origins of social Europe and emphasising the point that a long way has been travelled since
1957 when the Treaty of Rome was launched.
    On closer inspection, one can identify three phases.
    The Phase of Functionalisation to Market Needs (1957-1985) began with creating the European
Economic Community, heir to the Economic Community of Coal and Steel. At that time,
the protection of workers was functional to the market's needs, as witnessed by the examples
of the provisions on equal pay for men and women and the free movement of workers,
regulated respectively by Article 141 TEC (now 157 TFEU) and by Regulation 1612/1968,
as interpreted by the case-law of the Court of Justice, which has developed a concept of the
employee for unrestricted movement. After all, the EEC could not tolerate unequal
treatment of wages based on sex in some Member States because this would have constituted
an undue advantage for companies located in those States. Moreover, to ensure the free
movement of employees, it was necessary to develop a concept of subordination that was
quite different from national notions because for the functioning of the market was
important that the activity was not as marginal and ancillary as to be economically irrelevant.
    The Phase of Social Policies (1986-1999) began with the Single European Act of 1986 and
continued with the Maastricht Treaty (1991-1992) and the Treaty of Amsterdam (1997-1999),
which amended the social provisions of the Treaty establishing the European Economic
Community (TEC). These treaties have resulted in a progressive increase in the Union's
competencies in social policies and labour law, exercised in various fields (from prohibitions
on discrimination to equal treatment, from collective redundancies to European Works
Councils, from parental leave to atypical work). The other side of the coin of this phase was
the so-called British opting out, i.e. that country's decision not to temporarily apply the social
provisions contained in the new treaties, which marked the beginning of the multi-speed or
multi-faceted European Community.
    The Phase of the Constitutionalisation of Social Rights is also characterised by using the
'chiaroscuro' technique. This phase began in 2000 in Nice with the signing of a new Treaty,
which consolidated the Union's competencies in social matters, and with the proclamation
of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the so-called Nice Charter),
which, although only of political value at the time, brought together in a single document a
series of workers' rights and principles. However, the process towards the
constitutionalisation of social rights suffered a significant setback with the European
Constitutional Treaty, signed in 2004 but 'scuttled' by ratification referendums in some
countries. The Charter of Fundamental Rights, which that Treaty should have considered an
integral part of that Treaty, was at the centre of the debate. The Lisbon Treaty then revived
the fate of social Europe in 2007-2009. Such a Treaty systematised the Union's arrangements




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/15222                                                        137
     Massimiliano Delfino                                                                       Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                                       Issue 1, Vol. 15 (2022)
                                                                                                       Section: Miscellaneous



in this field and recognised the status of the Charter of Fundamental Rights as a primary
source of rights.10


4. The face of social Europe in the 2010s becomes pale: Brexit and the global
economic-financial crisis.

    Further problems for social Europe arose in the 2010s: the global economic-financial
crisis and Brexit.
    To cope with the economic crisis, the European Commission in those years intervened
in social matters and, above all, in wages through recommendations issued as part of the
integrated coordination of employment policies addressed to some Member States.
Moreover, these recommendations operated in an area - that of wages - traditionally the
elective field of regulation of the social partners, not only in Italy.11 In many cases, these were
rather vague recommendations, calling for moderation in wage increases (Bulgaria, Finland
and Italy) or minimum wages (mainly France and Slovenia).12 The Union addressed more
precise recommendations to other countries (Italy and Spain), such as reforming the systems
for determining wages. On the other hand, the EU directed strong criticism at those
countries (Belgium, Luxembourg, Malta and Cyprus) which provided automatic revaluation
mechanisms, which needed to be profoundly reformed if not eliminated. Lithuania, Portugal,
Romania and, albeit more informally, Spain had to freeze minimum wage levels, while in
2012, the Troika effectively imposed a 22% cut in the minimum wage on Greece.
    Regarding Brexit, as everyone knows, the UK left the European Union due to a referendum
in which 52% of British voters voted to leave the Union while 48% voted to stay. The British
government formally announced the country's withdrawal in March 2017, starting the
withdrawal negotiations, which ended on January 31, 2020. However, maybe not everyone
remembers that Labour Law weighed heavily in the British decision. As mentioned, the
Euro-scepticism across the Channel towards social norms originated from afar (the Treaty
of Amsterdam and Charter of Nice) and was confirmed in the years preceding Brexit, when
the United Kingdom was at the forefront of the European Commission's push towards some
more flexible labour rights and towards deregulation.13



10  In fact, this Protocol established that nothing in Title IV of the Charter, entitled Solidarity, including most
of the labour law provisions, creates justiciable rights applicable to the aforementioned Member States, except
in so far as those countries have provided for such rights in their national laws, thus weakening the application
of those rights.
11 On the effects of the economic crisis on collective bargaining in Europe, see Dorssemont F., Collective action
against austerity measure, in Bruun N., Loercher K., Schoemann I. (eds.), The Economic and Financial Crisis and
Collective Labor Law in Europe, Hart Publishing, Oxford, 2014, 153-170.
12 See Schulten T., Müller T., A new European Interventionism? The impact of the New European Economic Governance on
Wages        and     Collective      Bargaining,     2013,        please       refer      to      the       following      link:
www.epsu.org/IMG/pdf/EU_intervention_on_CB_Schulten_Mueller_final_version.pdf , 7. The European
Union has asked Sweden for an expansion of the low-wage sector, while Germany to keep wage increases in
line with productivity growth. See also Leonardi S., Salario minimo e ruolo del sindacato: il quadro europeo fra legge e
contrattazione, in Lavoro e Diritto, 2014, 185 ff.
13 Kenner J., Il potenziale impatto della Brexit sul Diritto del lavoro europeo e britannico, in Diritti Lavori Mercati, 2017, 5

ff.

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/15222                                                                                138
     Massimiliano Delfino                                               Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                               Issue 1, Vol. 15 (2022)
                                                                               Section: Miscellaneous



5. The hopes of the Charter, the revisited social dialogue and the pending
"accounts": far from sunset?

    The so-called "Five Presidents Report" of 2015 on the completion of the Economic and
Monetary Union underlined the importance of promoting a social market economy aimed at
full employment and social progress and gave rise to the proposal put forward in 2016 (and
therefore in the same period in which Brexit began), of a European Pillar of Social Rights,14
to be applied only in the Euro area.
    The European Pillar of Social Rights was solemnly proclaimed on November 17 2017, by
the European Parliament, the Commission and the Council. The Pillar had the merit of trying
to revive the social dimension of Europe, even though provisions contained therein were
not legally binding. Such a revival has had its fruit in the approval of new reforms (e.g. the
revision of the legislation on transnational posting through Directive 2018/957, Directive
2019/1158 on the reconciliation of life and work times), in the unexpected submission of
some proposals for directives, such as that on improving working conditions in platform
work of December 2021 and, above all, the proposal on adequate minimum wages in the
European Union of October 2020. The last-mentioned proposal is quite shocking given the
apparent lack of competence of the Union in matters of remuneration (Article 153.5 TFEU),
an attempt at regulation that acts as a counterpoint to the innumerable examples of
supranational interference in that area during the period of the global economic crisis which
was discussed a little while ago.
    The re-launch of social Europe can only pass, however, also through a protagonist that I
have not named so far, i.e. the Court of Justice, which indeed, in the past, has not always
stood out for its attention to social issues (see the judgments of the so-called Laval Quartet)
despite having also lived its golden years more or less 25 years ago, especially in the field of
anti-discrimination law. The Court is responsible for the interpretation of European
standards at any level. And the Court has recently made a substantial contribution to at least
two profiles.
    The first profile is the Charter of Fundamental Rights. So far, the judges have kept firm
the point of its limited scope of application but have repeatedly used the principles and rights
contained therein to interpret the rules contained in the European sources of lower rank and
national provisions implementing those sources. The example of Article 31 and its relations
with supranational and internal legislation on working time is emblematic, as is the innovative
interpretation of “non-working time” work.
    The second profile is more specific but no less critical. A few months ago, the Court of
Justice confirmed a judgment of the EU General Court (the Epsu cases) explicitly defining for
the first time the role of the European social partners in "making" Union law and recognising
the European Commission's broad discretion in deciding whether or not to incorporate into
the directive a collective agreement signed by European business associations and trade
unions. The role of the social partners in the European social dialogue has been reduced
compared to the past if one considers that before those rulings, the idea was that the


14   Kenner J., nt. (13), 7.

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/15222                                                       139
     Massimiliano Delfino                                                              Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                              Issue 1, Vol. 15 (2022)
                                                                                              Section: Miscellaneous



Commission had to submit a proposal for a directive to give collective agreements the
universal effect of the secondary sources.15
    The social partners no longer seem to play a role in making Union law. However, they
seem to have a different role in that procedure which is more similar to that carried out in
the domestic legal systems of most of the Member States where, in the context of a trilateral
social dialogue (involving the government, trade unions and employers' associations), the
government has the power to decide whether or not to implement the contents of the
agreements signed in some statutory provisions or bills.
    Ultimately, the Commission's similar discretion in presenting the proposal for a directive
can be seen as a positive aspect, as the social partners, particularly the employers' associations,
have sometimes been afraid of entering into collective agreements which could acquire the
status of binding norms and for this reason they have decided to withdraw from the
negotiation, as happened in the case of temporary agency work. Therefore, the presence of
the Commission's discretion could also facilitate social dialogue. The social partners act in
collective bargaining where the aim is to promote the interests of the signatory parties and,
ultimately, the collective interests. This aim is the traditional field of action for the social
partners where they feel freer to play their natural roles.
    I want to approach the conclusion of this contribution with the words of Jeff Kenner, an
authoritative British scholar. In the aftermath of Brexit, he wondered whether the European
Union, having freed itself of the 'ballast' of the United Kingdom, would be able to re-launch
Social Europe16. Based on what I have said, I could respond positively to Kenner's question
since the European Union in recent years has many more lights than shadows in social
matters, which at least would lead me to affirm that social Europe is far from waning to
continue using the metaphors mentioned above.
    Of course, it seems to be crucial to have to wait for some developments: first of all, the
outputs of the proposals for directives on working conditions in platform work and on
adequate wages, which, albeit slowly, are making progress (the latter proposal has been
passed by the Council but not yet by Parliament) and the results of the NRP, upon which
many are betting a lot on to get out of the pandemic.
    Finally, the Union's social response to the war in Ukraine is another positive signal for
starting a new phase of social cohesion in the European Union. However, the duration and
intensity of the conflict cannot fail to be irrelevant since it does not seem likely to me to
think seriously about re-launching social Europe in the presence of an emergency of this
magnitude. In short, while the war lasts, the priorities of the Union's institutions are
inevitable of another kind.


15 For further details see Ales E., Delfino M., The European social dialogue under siege?, in Diritti Lavori Mercati
International, 2022, 21 ff. (www.ddllmm.eu/dlm-int/ ). See also Ales E., EU Collective Labour Law: if any, how?, in
Ter Haar B, Kun A. (eds.), EU Collective Labour Law, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2021, 26 ff.; Delfino M., The
reinterpretation of the principle of horizontal subsidiarity, Working Paper CSDLE “Massimo D’Antona”.INT, 152/2020
(www.lex.unict.it); Dorssemont F., Lörcher K. Schmitt M., On the Duty to Implement European Framework
Agreements: Lessons to be Learned from the Hairdressers Case, in Industrial Law Journal, 2019, 1 ff.
16 It is possible to use the powers deriving from the Treaties to strengthen supranational labour law and, if so,

these powers could be exercised more freely or, conversely, a line of excessive prudence will be followed to
avoid divergence of regulation from the UK. Ultimately, will the British absence produce more coherence or
bring out the hitherto hidden divisions between the Member States?

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/15222                                                                      140
 Massimiliano Delfino                                                                Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                            Issue 1, Vol. 15 (2022)
                                                                                            Section: Miscellaneous



                                                 Bibliography

Ales E., Delfino M., The European social dialogue under siege?, in Diritti Lavori Mercati International,
2022, 21 ff.;
Ales E., EU Collective Labour Law: if any, how?, in Ter Haar B, Kun A. (eds.), EU Collective
Labour Law, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2021, 26 ff.;
Arena A., Emergenza e libertà fondamentali nel mercato unico, in Staiano S. (ed.), Nel ventesimo anno
del Terzo Millennio. Sistemi politici, istituzioni economiche e produzione del diritto al cospetto della pandemia
da Covid-19, Editoriale scientifica, Napoli, 2020, 357 ff;
Delfino M., The reinterpretation of the principle of horizontal subsidiarity, Working Paper CSDLE
“Massimo D’Antona”.INT, 152/2020 (www.lex.unict.it);
Dorssemont F., Collective action against austerity measure, in Bruun N., Lörcher K., Schoemann
I. (eds.), The Economic and Financial Crisis and Collective Labor Law in Europe, Hart Publishing,
Oxford, 2014, 153-170;
Dorssemont F., Lörcher K. Schmitt M., On the Duty to Implement European Framework
Agreements: Lessons to be Learned from the Hairdressers Case, in Industrial Law Journal, 2019, 1 ff;
Giubboni S., In uno spirito si solidarietà tra gi Stati Membri…. Noterella polemica sulla proposta di
direttiva a spirit of solidarity between the Member States… Noterella polemica sulla proposta della
Commissione d’una cosiddetta Cassa integrazione europea, in Rivista di Diritto della Sicurezza Sociale,
2020, 421 ff.;
Kenner J., Il potenziale impatto della Brexit sul Diritto del lavoro europeo e britannico, in Diritti Lavori
Mercati, 2017, 5 ff;
Leonardi S., Salario minimo e ruolo del sindacato: il quadro europeo fra legge e contrattazione, in Lavoro
e Diritto, 2014, 185 ff;
Riccobono A., Un “salto di specie” per l’UE: la solidarietà europea alla prova della crisi pandemica, in
Garilli A. (ed.), Dall’emergenza al rilancio. Lavoro e diritti sociali alla prova della pandemia,
Giappichelli, Torino, 2020, 201-204;
Schulten T., Müller T., A new European Interventionism? The impact of the New European Economic
Governance on Wages and Collective Bargaining, 2013:
www.epsu.org/IMG/pdf/EU_intervention_on_CB_Schulten_Mueller_final_version.pdf.




Copyright © 2022 Massimiliano Delfino. This article is released under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/15222                                                                    141
