Person: Aloisi, Antonio
Loading...
Email Address
Birth Date
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Job Title
First Name
Antonio
Last Name
Aloisi
Affiliation
IE University
School
IE Law School
Department
Digital & Tech Law
Identifiers
Name
18 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 10 of 18
Publication Regulation and the future of work: The employment relationship as an innovation facilitator(Wiley, 2020-02-06) Aloisi, Antonio; De Stefano, Valerio ; https://ror.org/02jjdwm75Digital transformation and the reorganization of the firm have given rise to new forms of work that diverge significantly from the standard employment relationship. Advocates of digital disruption suggest that the existing legal framework cannot accommodate “innovative” working templates and business models. This article, however, argues that labour regulation can continue to facilitate innovation, presenting the employment relationship as a flexible instrument, and standard forms of employment as the means of achieving efficiencies and cost advantages. First, they allow for the full exercise of managerial prerogative and attendant internal flexibility in workforce deployment, and, second, they constitute an effective device to deliver training and develop skills.Publication The “spillover effect” of algorithmic management and how (not) to tame it(Edward Elgar Publishing, 2024-04-22) Aloisi, Antonio; Potocka Sionek, Nastazja; European Union’s Erasmus+; https://ror.org/02jjdwm75This chapter delves into the implications of the algorithmic management (AM) “spillover effect”, namely the diffusion of AM systems and practices from the platform economy to conventional work settings and the broader labour market. The AM spillover is tracked across the factual, jurisprudential and legislative dimensions. The crucial questions on which this chapter is targeted are as follows. Are the existing judicial and regulatory responses keeping pace with developments? What are the lessons to be learned from the first wave of litigation concerning AM in the food delivery sector and the first generation of laws targeting AM in the platform economy? Finally, what is the way forward when it comes to addressing the AM spillover most effectively? This chapter begins by dissecting the tools and practices adopted to engage, dispatch, manage, control and assess people who perform platform work. It then examines the case law and regulatory instruments addressing AM in the platform economy and beyond at both EU and national levels. The analysis reveals a significant shift in focus towards data protection, non-discrimination, and working conditions for larger workforce segments. Moreover, a normative critique of the emerging fragmented regulatory approach is presented, contending that a comprehensive solution requires the effective implementation of the existing legal framework and the design of AM specific legislation to close the gaps in the EU and national acquis.Publication Platform work in Europe: Lessons learned, legal developments and challenges ahead(Sage journal, 2022-01-31) Aloisi, Antonio; European Union’s Erasmus+; https://ror.org/02jjdwm75Several years since first emerging in Europe, platform work continues to represent a ‘social dilemma’ for workers, social partners, policymakers and society as a whole. As a result of intense litigation, analysis and reporting, much is known about the contractual and working conditions in this growing labour market segment. While the European Union (EU) institutions are considering adopting a new Directive based on Art. 153 TFEU, there are a number of significant top-down and bottom-up national cases worth discussing. Workers across Europe have been reclassified by many courts; some governments have taken regulatory initiatives to address the risk of precariousness and have implemented new comprehensive legal instruments to safeguard a level playing field for both workers and platforms. This article discusses how existing and new domestic and EU labour law provisions can improve the labour conditions of platform workers. Its overarching goal is to address possible policy gaps and the implications for EU social law by exploring the lessons that can be drawn from recent policies and legal developments. Section two briefly touches upon the policymaking initiatives in France, Spain and Italy. Moreover, it presents and reviews the main outcomes of litigation at the domestic level, focusing on the pervasive role played by algorithmic management. After introducing the Pillar of Social Rights (EPSR), section three critically analyses two key achievements at the EU level: the Directive on transparent and predictable working conditions and the Recommendation on access to social protection for workers and the self-employed. Section four explores the elasticity of the triad of Directives that regulate atypical forms of employment (part-time, fixed-term and temporary agency work). It is argued that the narrow construction of the Directives’ scope of application could represent an obstacle. However, an adaptive and purposive approach by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) could result in the classification of platform workers as falling within the scope of the social acquis in certain fields. Finally, section five concludes by providing concrete policy proposals focussed on cross-border issues, algorithmic transparency, the introduction of a presumption of employment status and collective bargaining.Publication A Solution in Search of a Problem? Collective Rights and the Antitrust Labour Exemption in Italy(Cambridge University Press, 2022-05) Aloisi, Antonio; Gramano, Elena; Paul, Sanjukta; McCrystal, Shae; McGaughey, Ewan; https://ror.org/02jjdwm75This chapter investigates potential conflicts arising in the Italian legal framework between collective labour rights and the application of competition law to the constellation of personal labour relations that escape binary taxonomies. Its overarching goal is to understand whether and to what extent concerted wage-fixing practices are granted a special immunity. Historical evidence suggests that collective agreements covering the kaleidoscopic group of non-standard workers have never been targeted by the Italian competition authority. We situate the examination of labour antitrust exemption in the broader picture of the adequacy of the current mechanisms of “collective self-regulation” for self-employed workers. This chapter illustrates the Constitutional framework and case law developments on whether self-employed workers fall within the personal scope of collective rights. It also argues that several provisions corroborate that the Italian lawmaker often entrusts social partners in regulating specific aspects of the relationship of certain categories of self-employed workers. The chapter also presents a selection of collective agreements for non-standard workers, and then discusses how long-established trade unions have included non-standard workers in their membership through multiple, not necessarily successful, attempts. Finally, it presents practical hurdles that make it difficult to build impactful solidarity amongst non-standard workers.Publication Automation, Augmentation, Autonomy: Labour Regulation and the Digital Transformation of Managerial Prerogatives(Bloomsbury, 2022-11-29) Aloisi, Antonio; Gyulavári, Tamás; Menegatti, Emanuele; https://ror.org/02jjdwm75This chapter is written within the framework of the ‘Boss Ex Machina’ project, which has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 893888. I am extremely grateful to Valerio De Stefano, Nastazja Potocka-Sionek, Silvia Rainone, the editors of this volume and my colleagues at IE University Law School for participating in an enriching discussion and providing invaluable feedback. Technologies together represent a constitutive component of modern societies, which is why their multifarious impacts have long been at the centre of scholarly and popular discourses. Understandably, their emergence has prompted both rosy expectations and justified anxieties. In addition to permeating almost all aspects of human life, digital advances are significantly altering workplace interactions and reshaping industrial processes. The world of work is arguably one of many areas in which the influence of new technology is increasingly tangible. Over the last few years, workers in all sectors have witnessed the frantic acceleration of the digital transformation, which has been further exacerbated (if not validated) by the Covid-19 pandemic necessitating the reorganisation of production methods while contributing to the widespread adoption of digital solutions intended to enable business continuity, facilitate remote working arrangements and keep people safe. Both during the most severe phases of the Covid-19 lockdowns and after the related restrictions were relaxed, the penetration of digital applications continued to reach astonishing peaks, corroborating their role as ‘privatised utilities’ for workers, employers and public institutions alike. Yet, the relevance of digital automation was prominent well before the pandemic struck. This exogenous event could, therefore, serve as a litmus test of the soundness of theories concerning human substitution, expanded managerial powers, skill displacement and efficiency enhancement....Publication Demystifying flexibility, exposing the algorithmic boss: a note on the first italian case classifying A (Food-delivery) Platform worker as an employee(IE University, 2021-03-22) Aloisi, Antonio; European Commission; https://ror.org/02jjdwm75In November 2020, the Palermo Tribunal reinstated a Glovo rider and reclassified him as a full-time, permanent employee, to be remunerated according to the applicable sectoral collective bargaining agreement (for the service sector), on the grounds that his autonomy was merely notional, since the platform could organize the execution of work and discipline noncompliance with rigorous instructions issued through the internal booking system. The judge ordered compensation for wage differentials and reimbursement for the unpaid time the worker spent waiting for orders. This dispatch is organized as follows. After a brief introduction, Section II describes the main facts underlying the legal dispute, as presented by the claimant and ascertained by the judge. Section III is aimed at disentangling the judge’s multi-layered reasoning. It covers four main topics: (i) the legal nature of the service rendered by the platform, (ii) the complementary techniques for classifying working relationships, (iii) the emergence of an adaptable notion of subordination, and (iv) the pervasive role played by management by algorithms. Section IV summarizes the key elements of the ruling and discusses its weaknesses.Publication An unfinished task? Matching the Platform Work Directive with the EU and international "social acquis"(2023) Aloisi, Antonio; Rainone, Silvia; Countouris, Nicola; European Union’s Erasmus+; https://ror.org/02jjdwm75Besides straining international, regional and national employment status classification models, digital labour platforms are pioneering new strategies and approaches in terms of algorithmic management, digital surveillance, remote work and cross-border outsourcing, which are increasingly being adopted in more conventional sectors of the economy. Developments in the platform economy are thus crucial in providing a stress test for the resilience of existing labour standards, as well as providing useful input in terms of the reforms needed to ensure their suitability, the collective interest representation and mobilization aspects comprehended by rapidly changing labour markets. This paper seeks to explore the key emerging regulatory dimensions of platform work. It contextualizes the challenges associated with platform work as an expression of the consolidated features that, in the past decades, have been transforming the labour market: non-standardization and the deregulation of employment relationships. Following that, it considers the definition of the personal scope of application as a key challenge faced by essentially all attempts to regulate platform work. It does so primarily by exploring the functions and operations of a legal device known as “presumption of employment”, currently being considered by the proposed EU directive on platform work as a key tool to address the complex employment status classification questions that have surrounded the “gig economy” since its emergence. The paper then provides a conceptual cartography of the various EU regulatory instruments (both existing ones and those currently in the legislative pipeline) that will, jointly, define the legal mosaic of labour rights applicable to the heterogeneous phenomenon of platform work in the years to come.Publication Festina Lente': The ILO and EU Agendas on the Digital Transformation of Work(IE University, 2020-12-01) Potocka Sionek, Nastazja ; Aloisi, Antonio; European Commission; https://ror.org/02jjdwm75This article compares the International Labour Organization (ILO) and European Union (EU) agendas concerning the digital transformation of work, and addresses possible policy gaps and their implications for international and EU labour law. It critically reviews the current social acquis of both institutions and concentrates on the key analogies between the ILO’s Centenary Declaration for the Future of Work and some of the various regulatory initiatives taken by EU institutions in the context of the Pillar of Social Rights. The article finds that, despite the often articulated calls for urgent and original measures, both institutions’ programs present largely a prudent continuation of traditional narratives, failing to strengthen the adequacy of existing labour regulation regimes. Besides their predominantly non-binding nature, the efficacy of the most future-oriented instruments is profoundly undermined by the unreasonable exclusion of those workers who bear most of the brunt of social disparities accelerated by digitization and casualization of work. Also, the implementation of these initiatives may be jeopardized by complex governance methods and never soothed tensions between conflicting approaches and objectives. The study concludes that, although positive signs are emerging in the supranational legal order, much remains to be done to address the multifarious challenges brought about by the digital transformation.Publication Time Is Running Out'. The Yodel Order and Its Implications for Platform Work in the EU(IE University, 2020-12-21) Aloisi, Antonio; European Commission; https://ror.org/02jjdwm75This commentary examinescase C-692/19, an order in response to a request for a preliminary ruling regarding the scope of application of working time protection, handed down by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in April 2020.A courier working for a shipping company filed a claimbefore aUKemployment tribunal demanding reclassification as a ‘worker’with accessto the national legislation implementing Directive 2003/88/EC on working time.The tribunal decided to refer the question to the CJEU. At first glance, some elements of the order maygive us the impression that EU working time protection does not cover workerswho may find themselves in a situation of (bogus) self-employment, including those in the platform economy. However, this is not the case. The order is based on a specific set of facts that are in line with the CJEU’s established jurisprudential practiceson the conceptofworker, according towhich workers formally classified as self-employed under the contract or the national law are excluded from the scope of the Working Time Directive only if they enjoy genuine, not nominal organisational autonomy.This analysis is organised as follows. After some introductory remarks, part 2 summarises the arguments of the remitting court and reviews the business model of the delivery company. Part 3 critically discusses some passages of the order. It also examines the notion of ‘worker’ asshaped by the CJEU, highlights strengths and shortcomings of this interpretive attitude, and summarises the proposals to overcome the weaknesses of an under-inclusive and potentially ineffective application of EU law. After appraising the widespread practices in the platform economy and the most recent regulatory developments, part 4 demystifies the issueof organisational flexibility, which is often understood in a unidirectional way, to the advantage of business. This analysisconcludes by advocatingfora purposive adaptionof existing legal categories, beyond the formalistic approach adopted by the referring court in this case.Publication Regulating Algorithmic Management at Work in the European Union: Data Protection, Non-Discrimination and Collective Rights(International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations, 2024-01-01) Aloisi, Antonio; European Commission; https://ror.org/02jjdwm75In recent years, algorithmic management practices have been widely adopted by employers to monitor remote work, analyse how applicants behave during job interviews, rate workers' performance and calculate wage adjustments. As a consequence, the condition of workers being subjected to the upstream authority of managers has intensified. Employment protection legislation recognises the importance of curbing the bosses' unilateral discretionary power by deploying several controlling factors. However, the traditional guardrails have now been displaced by the transformative impetus of data-driven technologies. As a response to this challenge, several European Union law tools could be pragmatically adapted to curtail the expansion of managers' decisional leeway. By applying a multidimensional, anticipatory and participatory approach, this paper integrates substantive and procedural rules that contribute to rebalancing informational asymmetries within workplaces and assesses the effectiveness of those rules. Using examples from case law, administrative decisions and legislative developments, it also discusses the mutually reinforcing relationship between data protection provisions and anti-discrimination measures, which renders automated decisions documentable and contestable. Beyond defensive tactics, this paper calls for the involvement of worker representatives in co-designing digital human resources policies. Indeed, as data are relational, collective bodies are uniquely placed to exchange information, raise awareness and bring claims, thereby preventing algorithmic abuses.