Skip to main content

The Role of Collective Bargaining in Labour Law Regimes: A Global Approach

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Collective Bargaining in Labour Law Regimes

Part of the book series: Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law ((GSCL,volume 32))

Abstract

Collective bargaining is a profound channel of collective participation and industrial democracy. The idea of labour protection as a collective phenomenon has been legitimizing the autonomy of collective bargaining and social partners in their relation to the state, which has shaped the strong status of collective agreements in many labour law systems. From the collective labour rights standpoint, recent adjustments to bargaining frameworks that have occurred in many systems under scrutiny place great importance on economic factors and have strikingly narrowed the space of labour rights-oriented argumentation and values.

The collective bargaining regimes in Europe and Asia as well as North and South America under scrutiny face challenges posed by globalization and transformations of work and working life. Responses to ongoing changes reflect the diversity of bargaining regimes but they also highlight the need for a contextual understanding of developments. Although in some countries well-functioning social dialogue involves developing new strategies to improve labour protection, the transformation of work is so profound that it adds pressure to adopt new and more effective bargaining strategies and agendas. One of the evident consequences of decentralization occurring in many bargaining systems is that the power balance in bargaining tables is changing throughout different bargaining levels. The increase of local bargaining calls for developing institutional settings and procedural safeguards to enable local negotiations based on a more equal footing between the parties.

In the domestic systems under comparison, notable differences exist in the status and protection of the right to collective bargaining. Collective bargaining regimes also differ when assessed from local, sectoral and national or regional and global perspectives. Histories shape regulatory approaches and explain the poor development and inefficiency of some bargaining systems. Complex transformations are noticeable in the changing degree of cooperation in industrial relations. There is a need for renewed theoretical approaches to and interpretations of collective bargaining regimes deriving from labour law-originated  concepts and values. From the labour law perspective the present discussion on the need to develop bargaining regimes has been carried out loosely. Ongoing changes in collective labour law regimes are so fundamental that they should affect the way we do labour law. They can be argued as calling for a more precise identification of core concepts and their relation to values and capabilities of a certain historical and enabling character which is visible in established collective labour protection mechanisms in many labour law regimes. Collective bargaining produces frameworks for negotiated flexibility and adjustments required for ensuring employability as well as business competitiveness and efficiency. As a result, decollectivization of industrial relations is taking place as, at the local level, new patterns and methods of setting terms of employment are evolving in a way which highlights employer discretion and bargaining as an individualized process between employer and employee. Beyond domestic regimes, the evolution of transnational agreements is an important development adding a new layer to industrial relations systems. On a theoretical level, transnational agreements connect with the broader economic, social, political and cultural framework of cross-border industrial relations within multinational companies as national industrial relations from different legal contexts amalgamate in companies’ bargaining activities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This article, which is based on my general report made for the IACL Fukuoka World Conference of 2018, has greatly benefited from national reports from Europe, North and South America, and Asia as well as discussions during the session of the Conference where the general report was presented.

  2. 2.

    Malmberg (2002).

  3. 3.

    The Nordic countries discussed include Denmark, Finland and Sweden but not Norway and Iceland.

  4. 4.

    See also Edström (2016).

  5. 5.

    Denmark, Finland and Sweden are members of the European Union whereas Iceland and Norway are members of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA).

  6. 6.

    Liukkunen and Chen (2016), p. 5.

  7. 7.

    See Weiss (2004), pp. 229–230.

  8. 8.

    See also Liukkunen (2007), pp. 152–155.

  9. 9.

    See also Tuori (2002).

  10. 10.

    Collective labour law can be defined as a sub-category of labour law encompassing collective labour rights; both employee participation and collective bargaining, and their regulation.

  11. 11.

    See Zimmermann (1996), p. 602.

  12. 12.

    See also Zumbansen (2012).

  13. 13.

    See Legrand (2004), pp. 251–253.

  14. 14.

    See the report of Mazuyer (2019) about France in this volume, p. 269.

  15. 15.

    See the report of Senčur Peček (2019) about Slovenia in this volume, pp. 502–503.

  16. 16.

    See the report of Smokvina and Laleta (2019) about Croatia in this volume, p. 195.

  17. 17.

    See the report of Pichrt and Štefko (2019) about the Czech Republic in this volume, pp. 207–210 and 222–223.

  18. 18.

    See the report of Pisarczyk and Skupień (2019) about Poland in this volume, p. 432.

  19. 19.

    See Bernaciak (2015), p. 375.

  20. 20.

    See the report of Gerasimova (2019) about Russia in this volume, p. 473.

  21. 21.

    Convention No 98 concerning the Application of the Principles of the Right to Organise and to Bargain Collectively, as modified by the Final Articles Revision Convention, 1961.

  22. 22.

    ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-up, adopted by the International Labour Conference at its Eighty-Sixth Session, Geneva, 18 June 1998 (Annex revised 15 June 2010).

  23. 23.

    Convention No 154 concerning the Promotion of Collective Bargaining.

  24. 24.

    Recommendation No 91 concerning Collective Agreements (Collective Agreements Recommendation).

  25. 25.

    Several other conventions are also relevant to international protection of the right to collective bargaining, such as Convention No 151 concerning Protection of the Right to Organise and Procedures for Determining Conditions of Employment in the Public Service.

  26. 26.

    Liukkunen and Chen (2016), pp. 11–13.

  27. 27.

    See Case C-341/05 Laval un Partneri Ltd v Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet, Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundets avdelning 1, Byggettan, Svenska Elektrikerförbundet.

  28. 28.

    Article 28 of the Charter.

  29. 29.

    See ECtHR, Demir and Baykara v Turkey, 12 November 2008 as well as Enerji Yapi-Yol Sen v Turkey, 21 April 2009. See also Liukkunen (2016), p. 139.

  30. 30.

    For an extensive comparative account of the right to strike, see Waas (2014).

  31. 31.

    See Liukkunen (2016), p. 134.

  32. 32.

    See Case C-438/05 International Transport Workers’ Federation and Finnish Seamen’s Union v Viking Line ABP and OÜ Viking Line Eesti and Case C-341/05 Laval.

  33. 33.

    See the report of Waas (2019) about Germany in this volume, p. 289 and the decision of the Federal Labour Court of 5 October 2010 referred to therein.

  34. 34.

    See the report of McEvoy (2019) about Canada in this volume, p. 138.

  35. 35.

    See the report of Campos Medina Maia (2019) about Brazil in this volume, pp. 96–100.

  36. 36.

    See the report of Campos Medina Maia (2019) about Brazil in this volume, pp. 100–102.

  37. 37.

    See the report of Pisarczyk and Skupień (2019) about Poland in this volume, pp. 418 and 432.

  38. 38.

    See for example Sigeman (2003), p. 498.

  39. 39.

    See the report of Videbæk Munkholm and Højer Schjøler (2019) about Denmark in this volume, pp. 225–228.

  40. 40.

    See the report of Magnani (2019) about Italy in this volume, pp. 359 and 362.

  41. 41.

    See the report of Ray (2019) about the United States in this volume, p. 600.

  42. 42.

    See the report of Waas (2019) about Germany in this volume, p. 291.

  43. 43.

    See the report of Araki (2019) about Japan in this volume, pp. 379–381.

  44. 44.

    See the report of Mazuyer (2019) about France in this volume, pp. 257–258.

  45. 45.

    See the report of Magnani (2019) about Italy in this volume, pp. 361 and 367.

  46. 46.

    See the report of Kun (2019) about Hungary in this volume, pp. 336–347.

  47. 47.

    See the report of Chacartegui (2019) about Spain in this volume, p. 533.

  48. 48.

    See Koukiadaki and Kokkinou (2016), pp. 151–152.

  49. 49.

    Ibid.

  50. 50.

    See the report of Campos Medina Maia (2019) about Brazil in this volume, pp. 95–96 and p. 102.

  51. 51.

    See the report of Campos Medina Maia (2019) about Brazil in this volume, p. 97.

  52. 52.

    See the report of Mazuyer (2019) about France in this volume, pp. 262–263.

  53. 53.

    See the report of Smokvina and Laleta (2019) about Croatia in this volume, pp. 192–193.

  54. 54.

    See the report of Waas (2019) about Germany in this volume, pp. 292 and 304.

  55. 55.

    See the report of Gerasimova (2019) about Russia in this volume, pp. 478–479.

  56. 56.

    See Seifert (2014) and Clauwaert and Schömann (2012).

  57. 57.

    See the report of Westregård (2019) about Sweden in this volume, pp. 564–565 and p. 574.

  58. 58.

    See the report of Videbæk Munkholm and Højer Schjøler (2019) about Denmark in this volume, p. 236.

  59. 59.

    See the report of Kéfer (2019) about Belgium in this volume, pp. 66–67.

  60. 60.

    See the report of Mazuyer (2019) about France in this volume, p. 269.

  61. 61.

    See the report of Mazuyer (2019) about France in this volume, pp. 269–270.

  62. 62.

    See the report of Mazuyer (2019) about France in this volume, pp. 262–263.

  63. 63.

    See the report of Pisarczyk and Skupień (2019) about Poland in this volume, pp. 427–431.

  64. 64.

    See the report of Pisarczyk and Skupień (2019) about Poland in this volume, p. 422 and pp. 434–435.

  65. 65.

    See the report of Kun (2019) about Hungary in this volume, pp. 336–337 and p. 346.

  66. 66.

    See the report of Kun (2019) about Hungary in this volume, p. 345.

  67. 67.

    See the report of Chacartegui (2019) about Spain in this volume, pp. 531, 539 and 452.

  68. 68.

    See the report of Magnani (2019) about Italy in this volume, pp. 366–369.

  69. 69.

    See Bernaciak (2015), p. 374.

  70. 70.

    See the report of Senčur Peček (2019) about Slovenia in this volume, pp. 520–521.

  71. 71.

    See the report of Kun (2019) about Hungary in this volume, p. 347.

  72. 72.

    See the report of Smokvina and Laleta (2019) about Croatia in this volume, pp. 196–197.

  73. 73.

    See the report of Waas (2019) about Germany in this volume, pp. 294 and 305.

  74. 74.

    See the report of Waas (2019) about Germany in this volume, pp. 297–298.

  75. 75.

    See Fornasier (2016), p. 41 and the report of Waas (2019) about Germany in this volume, p. 300.

  76. 76.

    See the report of Waas (2019) about Germany in this volume, p. 304.

  77. 77.

    See Fornasier (2016), p. 44.

  78. 78.

    See the report of Waas (2019) about Germany in this volume, p. 304.

  79. 79.

    See the report of Waas (2019) about Germany in this volume, pp. 304–305.

  80. 80.

    See the report of Waas (2019) about Germany in this volume, p. 294.

  81. 81.

    See Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 on the prevention and correction of macroeconomic imbalances.

  82. 82.

    Seifert (2014), p. 326.

  83. 83.

    See Seifert (2014).

  84. 84.

    See Schulten and Müller (2012).

  85. 85.

    Seifert (2014) as well as Schulten and Müller (2012), p. 184.

  86. 86.

    Schulten and Müller (2012), p. 185.

  87. 87.

    Schulten and Müller (2012), p. 181.

  88. 88.

    See also Seifert (2014), p. 329.

  89. 89.

    See also Fischer-Lescano (2014), p. 55.

  90. 90.

    Seifert (2014), p. 323.

  91. 91.

    See Schulten (2015), p. 4.

  92. 92.

    See the report of Papadimitriou (2019) about Greece in this volume, p. 327 and Schulten (2015), pp. 1–2.

  93. 93.

    See the report of Magnani (2019) about Italy in this volume, p. 369.

  94. 94.

    See the report of Westregård (2019) about Sweden in this volume, p. 564.

  95. 95.

    See the report of Araki (2019) about Japan in this volume, pp. 386–390.

  96. 96.

    See the report of Araki (2019) about Japan in this volume, p. 390.

  97. 97.

    See Chen (2016), p. 73.

  98. 98.

    See the report of Li et al. (2019) about China in this volume, p. 171.

  99. 99.

    See Brown (2015), pp. 135–154.

  100. 100.

    See Chen (2016), pp. 70–73.

  101. 101.

    Li (2016), p. 107.

  102. 102.

    See the report of Li et al. (2019) about China in this volume, p. 174.

  103. 103.

    Chen (2016), p. 76.

  104. 104.

    See the report of Li et al. (2019) about China in this volume, pp. 178–179.

  105. 105.

    See the report of Wei and Rafael (2019) about Macau in this volume, pp. 403–404.

  106. 106.

    See the report of Cheng (2019) about Taiwan in this volume, pp. 579–580 and p. 580.

  107. 107.

    That year, the public sector employed approximately 20 million people and the private sector more than 115 million people. See the report of Ray (2019) about the United States in this volume, p. 616, fn. 92.

  108. 108.

    See the report of Ray (2019) about the United States in this volume, pp. 596–599.

  109. 109.

    See the report of Ray (2019) about the United States in this volume, pp. 603–606.

  110. 110.

    See the report of Ray (2019) about the United States in this volume, p. 597.

  111. 111.

    The report of Ray (2019) about the United States in this volume, p. 617, fn. 95.

  112. 112.

    See the report of McEvoy (2019) about Canada in this volume, pp. 122–123 and 147–157.

  113. 113.

    See the report of McEvoy (2019) about Canada in this volume, pp. 124–127 and p. 163.

  114. 114.

    See the report of Fontaine (2019) about Quebec in this volume, pp. 449–450.

  115. 115.

    See the report of Campos Medina Maia (2019) about Brazil in this volume, pp. 114–115.

  116. 116.

    See the report of Campos Medina Maia (2019) about Brazil in this volume, pp. 113–114.

  117. 117.

    See the report of Campos Medina Maia (2019) about Brazil in this volume, p. 102 and pp. 108–112.

  118. 118.

    See the report of Campos Medina Maia (2019) about Brazil in this volume, pp. 110–113.

  119. 119.

    See the report of Gerasimova (2019) about Russia in this volume, pp. 471–473.

  120. 120.

    See the report of Gerasimova (2019) about Russia in this volume, p. 474.

  121. 121.

    See the report of Gerasimova (2019) about Russia in this volume, p. 471 and pp. 474–478.

  122. 122.

    See the report of Gerasimova (2019) about Russia in this volume, pp. 485–486 and p. 488.

  123. 123.

    See also Arthurs (1998).

  124. 124.

    See Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services.

  125. 125.

    See Liukkunen (2012). On the impact of the Laval judgment on Nordic collective bargaining models, see, for example, Malmberg and Sigeman (2008), the report of Videbæk Munkholm and Højer Schjøler (2019) about Denmark in this volume, pp. 242–244 and the report of Westregård (2019) in this volume, pp. 568–570.

  126. 126.

    See the report of Westregård (2019) about Sweden in this volume, p. 570.

  127. 127.

    See the report of Westregård (2019) about Sweden in this volume, pp. 545–546.

  128. 128.

    See the report of Westregård (2019) about Sweden in this volume, pp. 545–546.

  129. 129.

    See the report of Araki (2019) about Japan in this volume, pp. 395–396.

  130. 130.

    See also Sobczak (2003).

  131. 131.

    See Liukkunen (2014).

  132. 132.

    See for example Blanpain and Colucci (2004), p. 5.

  133. 133.

    See also Pataut (2016), pp. 95–97.

  134. 134.

    Liukkunen (2017). See also Liukkunen (2004), pp. 120–122.

  135. 135.

    See Liukkunen (2014).

  136. 136.

    On the development of the differentiation between different categories of transnational agreements, see, for example Schömann (2012), pp. 202–205.

  137. 137.

    See Database on transnational company agreements. http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=978&langId=en (last visited 26 April 2019).

  138. 138.

    See Liukkunen (2014).

  139. 139.

    See also Liukkunen (2007), p. 155.

  140. 140.

    Tripartite Declaration of Principles Concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy (1977, amended in 2000, 2016 and 2017); OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (2011).

  141. 141.

    See also Compa (2006).

  142. 142.

    See also Schömann (2012), pp. 198–199.

  143. 143.

    See Council Directive 94/45/EC of 22 September 1994 on the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees and Directive 2009/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 on the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees (recast) (Text with EEA relevance).

  144. 144.

    See also Carley (2009).

  145. 145.

    However, the EWC Directive has promoted institution building of EWCs beyond the formal institution for information and consultation. See Waddington (2011), p. 211.

  146. 146.

    See also the report of Mazuyer (2019) about France in this volume, pp. 277–278.

  147. 147.

    See the report of Kun (2019) about Hungary, pp. 352–354 as well as the report of Pisarczyk and Skupień (2019) about Poland in this volume, p. 438.

  148. 148.

    See the report of Pisarczyk and Skupień (2019) about Poland in this volume, p. 438.

  149. 149.

    See the report of Kun (2019) about Hungary in this volume, p. 353.

  150. 150.

    See Hernnstadt (2007), p. 207.

  151. 151.

    See Liukkunen (2014).

  152. 152.

    See Müller et al. (2008).

  153. 153.

    See in more detail Voss et al. (2008).

  154. 154.

    See the report of Mazuyer (2019) about France in this volume, p. 277.

  155. 155.

    See the report of Magnani (2019) about Italy in this volume, p. 371.

  156. 156.

    See the report of Chacartegui (2019) about Spain in this volume, p. 548.

  157. 157.

    See the report of Chacartegui (2019) about Spain in this volume, p. 547.

  158. 158.

    See the report of Campos Medina Maia (2019) about Brazil in this volume, p. 118.

  159. 159.

    See the report of Araki (2019) about Japan in this volume, pp. 393–395.

  160. 160.

    See the report of Araki (2019) about Japan in this volume, pp. 393–395.

  161. 161.

    Liukkunen (2017).

  162. 162.

    See Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I).

  163. 163.

    Liukkunen (2017).

  164. 164.

    See Communication from the European Commission on the Social Agenda, COM(2005) 33 final, 2005.

  165. 165.

    Liukkunen (2017).

  166. 166.

    See also European Commission Staff Working Document of 2008 entitled ‘The role of transnational company agreements in the context of increasing international integration’ (SEC(2008)2155).

  167. 167.

    See also generally European Commission Staff Working Document of 2008 entitled ‘The role of transnational company agreements in the context of increasing international integration’ (SEC(2008)2155).

  168. 168.

    See Liukkunen (2014).

  169. 169.

    See Müller et al. (2008).

  170. 170.

    See Liukkunen (2014).

  171. 171.

    See Schömann et al. (2007), p. 122; Sobczak (2007), p. 476.

  172. 172.

    See Sobczak (2007), p. 478.

  173. 173.

    See Sobczak (2007), pp. 471–472.

  174. 174.

    See Müller et al. (2008).

  175. 175.

    See also Rojot (2004), p. 523.

  176. 176.

    See Malmberg (2002), p. 10.

  177. 177.

    Treu (1987), p. 166.

References

  • Araki T (2019) Japan. In: Liukkunen U (ed) Collective labour law in labour regimes - a global perspective. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Arthurs HW (1998) The collective labour law of a global economy. In: Engels C, Weiss M (eds) Labour law and industrial relations at the turn of the century. Kluwer Law International, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernaciak M (2015) All roads lead to decentralization? Collective bargaining trends and prospects in Central and Eastern Europe. Transfer Eur Rev Labour Res 21(3):373–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blanpain R, Colucci M (2004) The globalization of labour standards: the soft law track. Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown RC (2015) Collective bargaining in China: Guangdong regulation a harbinger of national model? China-EU Law J 4:135–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campos Medina Maia D (2019) Brazil. In: Liukkunen U (ed) Collective labour law in labour regimes - a global perspective. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Carley M (2009) Report of the French EU Presidency conference “Transnational company agreements”

    Google Scholar 

  • Chacartegui C (2019) Spain. In: Liukkunen U (ed) Collective labour law in labour regimes - a global perspective. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen S (2016) The collective contract system in China. In: Basedow J, Chen S, Fornasier M, Liukkunen U (eds) Employee participation and collective bargaining in Europe and China. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng C (2019) Taiwan. In: Liukkunen U (ed) Collective labour law in labour regimes - a global perspective. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Clauwaert S, Schömann I (2012) The crisis and national labour law reforms: a mapping exercise. Eur Labour Law J 3(1):54–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Communication from the European Commission on the Social Agenda, COM(2005) 33 final, 2005

    Google Scholar 

  • Compa L (2006) Trade liberalization and labour law. Cornell University ILR School, Ithaca. Access at: https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=conference

    Google Scholar 

  • Database on transnational company agreements. Access at: http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=978&langId=en (last visited 26 April 2019)

  • Edström Ö (2016) Collective labour law in the Nordic countries. In: Basedow J, Chen S, Fornasier M, Liukkunen U (eds) Employee participation and collective bargaining in Europe and China. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission Staff Working Document of 2008 entitled ‘The role of transnational company agreements in the context of increasing international integration’ (SEC(2008)2155)

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer-Lescano A (2014) Competencies of the Troika: legal limitations of the institutions of the European Union. In: Bruun N, Lörcher K, Schömann I (eds) The economic and financial crisis and collective labour law in Europe. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Fontaine LL (2019) Québeq. In: Liukkunen U (ed) Collective labour law in labour regimes - a global perspective. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Fornasier M (2016) Collective bargaining in Germany. In: Basedow J, Chen S, Fornasier M, Liukkunen U (eds) Employee participation and collective bargaining in Europe and China. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerasimova E (2019) Russia. In: Liukkunen U (ed) Collective labour law in labour regimes - a global perspective. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Hernnstadt OE (2007) Are international framework agreements a path to corporate social responsibility? Univ Pa J Bus Employ Law 10:187–224

    Google Scholar 

  • Kéfer F (2019) Belgique. In: Liukkunen U (ed) Collective labour law in labour regimes - a global perspective. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Koukiadaki A, Kokkinou C (2016) The Greek system of collective bargaining in (the) crisis. In: Koukiadaki A, Távora I, Lucio MM (eds) Joint regulation and labour market policy in Europe during the crisis. European Trade Union Institute (ETUI), Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Kun A (2019) Hungary. In: Liukkunen U (ed) Collective labour law in labour regimes - a global perspective. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Legrand P (2004) The same and the different. In: Van Hoecke M (ed) Epistemology and methodology of comparative law. Bloomsbury Publishing, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Li J (2016) Collective contracts and trade unions in China. In: Basedow J, Chen S, Fornasier M, Liukkunen U (eds) Employee participation and collective bargaining in Europe and China. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Li W, Yan D, Chen Y (2019) China. In: Liukkunen U (ed) Collective labour law in labour regimes - a global perspective. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Liukkunen U (2004) The role of mandatory rules in labour law - a comparative study in the conflict of laws. Talentum, Helsinki

    Google Scholar 

  • Liukkunen U (2007) The method of understanding and an internal viewpoint – on the interface between comparative law and private international law. ZVglRWiss 106:141–157

    Google Scholar 

  • Liukkunen U (2012) Collision between the economic and the social: what has private international law got to do with it? In: Letto-Vanamo P, Smits J (eds) Coherence and fragmentation in European private law. Sellier European Law Publishers, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Liukkunen U (2014) Transnational labour law and fundamental labour rights: making Chinese workers matter? In: Liukkunen U, Chen Y (eds) China and ILO fundamental principles and rights in work. Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn

    Google Scholar 

  • Liukkunen U (2016) The right to strike in the international and European context – Viking, Laval and beyond. In: Basedow J, Chen S, Fornasier M, Liukkunen U (eds) Employee participation and collective bargaining in Europe and China. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Liukkunen U, Chen Y (2016) Developing fundamental labour rights in China: a new approach to implementation. In: Liukkunen U, Chen Y (eds) Fundamental labour rights in China – legal implementation and cultural logic. Springer, Berlin

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Liukkunen U (2017) Employment, collective bargaining. In: Basedow J, Rühl G, Ferrari F, de Miguel AP (eds) Encyclopedia of private international law. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Magnani M (2019) Italy. In: Liukkunen U (ed) Collective labour law in labour regimes - a global perspective. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Malmberg J (2002) The collective agreement as an instrument for regulation of wages and employment conditions. In: Wahlgren P (ed) Stability and change in Nordic labour law: legal abbreviations. Scandinavian studies in law 43. Stockholm Institute for Scandinavian Law, Stockholm

    Google Scholar 

  • Malmberg J, Sigeman T (2008) Industrial actions and EU economic freedoms: the autonomous collective bargaining model curtailed by the European Court of Justice. Common Market Law Rev 45(4):1115–1146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazuyer E (2019) France. In: Liukkunen U (ed) Collective labour law in labour regimes - a global perspective. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • McEvoy JP (2019) Canada. In: Liukkunen U (ed) Collective labour law in labour regimes - a global perspective. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller T, Platzer H, Rüb S (2008) International framework agreements – opportunities and limitations of a new tool of global trade union policy. Briefing Papers No 8/2008. Friedrich Ebert Stiftung International Trade Union Cooperation

    Google Scholar 

  • Papadimitriou C (2019) Grèce. In: Liukkunen U (ed) Collective labour law in labour regimes - a global perspective. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Pataut E (2016) European social dialogue and contractual autonomy. In: Basedow J, Chen S, Fornasier M, Liukkunen U (eds) Employee participation and collective bargaining in Europe and China. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Pichrt J, Štefko M (2019) Czech Republic. In: Liukkunen U (ed) Collective labour law in labour regimes - a global perspective. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Pisarczyk Ł, Skupień D (2019) Poland. In: Liukkunen U (ed) Collective labour law in labour regimes - a global perspective. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Ray DE (2019) The United States. In: Liukkunen U (ed) Collective labour law in labour regimes - a global perspective. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Rojot J (2004) The right to bargain collectively: an international perspective on its extent and relevance. Int J Comp Labour Law Ind Relat 20:513–532

    Google Scholar 

  • Schömann I (2012) Transnational company agreements: towards an internationalisation of industrial relations. In: Schömann I, Jagodzinski R, Boni G, Clauwaert S, Glassner V, Jaspers T (eds) Transnational collective bargaining at company level a new component of European industrial relations? ETUI, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Schömann I, Sobzack A, Voss E, Wilke P (2007) International framework agreements: new paths to workers’ participation in multinationals’ governance? Transfer Eur Rev Labour Res 14:111–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schulten T (2015) Opportunities for a restoration? The future of Greek collective bargaining after the Third Memorandum. The Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulten T, Müller T (2012) A new European interventionism? The impact of the new European economic governance on wages and collective bargaining. In: Natali D, Vanhercke B (eds) Social developments in the European Union 2012. ETUI, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Seifert A (2014) European Economic Governance and labor laws of the E.U. member states. Comp Labor Law Policy J 35:311–330

    Google Scholar 

  • Senčur Peček D (2019) Slovenia. In: Liukkunen U (ed) Collective labour law in labour regimes - a global perspective. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Sigeman T (2003) Nordic labour law. A brief presentation from a comparative perspective. Juridisk tidskrift 2002(3):497–503

    Google Scholar 

  • Smokvina V, Laleta S (2019) Croatia. In: Liukkunen U (ed) Collective labour law in labour regimes - a global perspective. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Sobczak A (2003) Codes of conduct in subcontracting networks: a labour law perspective. J Bus Ethics 44:225–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sobczak A (2007) Legal dimensions of international framework agreements in the field of corporate social responsibility. Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations 62:466–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treu T (1987) Centralization and decentralization in collective bargaining. Labour 1:147–174

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuori K (2002) Critical legal positivism. Ashgate, Farnham

    Google Scholar 

  • Videbæk Munkholm N, Højer Schjøler C (2019) Denmark. In: Liukkunen U (ed) Collective labour law in labour regimes - a global perspective. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Voss E, Wilke P, Sobczak A, Schömann I (2008) Codes of conduct and international framework agreements: new forms of governance at company level. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. Access at: http://www.academia.edu/678230/Codes_of_conduct_and_international_framework_agreements_New_forms_of_governance_at_company_level

    Google Scholar 

  • Waas B (ed) (2014) The right to strike: a comparative view. Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn

    Google Scholar 

  • Waas B (2019) Germany. In: Liukkunen U (ed) Collective labour law in labour regimes - a global perspective. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Waddington J (2011) European Works Councils. A transnational industrial relations institution in the making. Routledge, Abingdon

    Google Scholar 

  • Wei D, Rafael AP (2019) Macau. In: Liukkunen U (ed) Collective labour law in labour regimes - a global perspective. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss M (2004) The future of workers’ participation in the EU. In: Barnard C, Deakin S, Morris GS (eds) The future of labour law: Liber Amicorum Bob Hepple QC. Hart, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Westregård AJ (2019) Sweden. In: Liukkunen U (ed) Collective labour law in labour regimes - a global perspective. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann R (1996) Savigny’s legacy: legal history, comparative law and the emergence of a European legal science. Law Q Rev 112:576–605

    Google Scholar 

  • Zumbansen PC (2012) Comparative law’s coming of age? Twenty years after critical comparisons. In: Miller RA, Zumbansen PC (eds) Comparative law as transnational law. A decade of the German Law Journal. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ulla Liukkunen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Liukkunen, U. (2019). The Role of Collective Bargaining in Labour Law Regimes: A Global Approach. In: Liukkunen, U. (eds) Collective Bargaining in Labour Law Regimes. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 32. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16977-0_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16977-0_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-16976-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-16977-0

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics