EUPillar C-396/13 Sähköalojen ammattiliitto ry v Elektrobudowa Spółka Akcyjna (First Chamber)

Summary

The relevant part of the case (paras 19-26 of the CJEU judgment) is on the interpretation of Art 3 of Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services and of Art 14(2) of Rome I. It was referred to the CJEU in Finnish proceedings between a Finnish trade union in the electricity sector and a company established in Poland (ESA) in relation to the pay claims arising out of employment relationships. In order to carry out electrical installation work at the construction site for the nuclear power station in Finland, ESA had concluded, in Poland and under Polish law, employment contracts with 186 workers who were then posted to ESA’s Finnish branch. The workers maintained that ESA did not pay them the minimum remuneration that was due to them under the Finnish collective agreements in the sector and therefore they individually assigned their pay claims to the trade union they were members of so that the union could recover those claims. In the Finnish proceedings, ESA argued, in particular, that the trade union did not have standing to bring proceedings on behalf of the posted workers since Polish law prohibited the assignment of claims arising from an employment relationship. Accordingly, while assignment to the third party was allowed in this particular context under Finnish law, it appeared to be prohibited under Polish law. As regards Rome I, the referring court asked whether Art 14(2) of Rome I, having regard to Art 47 of the Charter, prohibits the application of national legislation of a Member State which contains a prohibition of the assignment of claims and demands arising from an employment relationship, and whether the law applicable to the assignment of claims arising from a contract of employment is the law which applies to the contract of employment in question under Art 14(2), regardless of whether the provisions of another law also affect the content of the individual claim. Although the referring court asked for guidance in relation to the law applicable to the assignment of pay claims under Art 14 of Rome I, the CJEU did not deal with this issue directly. It only decided that the governing law of the standing of the trade union to bring proceedings on behalf of the posted workers before the referring court is Finish procedural law according to the principle of the lex fori. The First Chamber noted that Art 3(1) of Directive 96/71 provides that questions related to the ‘minimum rates of pay’ within the meaning of that Directive are governed by the law of the Member State to whose territory the workers are posted in order to carry out their work (in this case Finland). This is true whatever the law applicable to the employment relationship (para 23). The AG’s opinion is much more interesting in explaining the relationship between Rome I and Directive 96/71 (see paras 40-57). AG Wahl took the view that Art 3(1) of Directive 96/71 is a special conflict-of-law rule relating to contractual obligations in relation to particular matters within the meaning of Art 23 of Rome I (see paras 50 and 51). Art 3(1) of Directive 96/71 makes the law applicable to certain mandatory rules mentioned in the Directive (including minimum rates of pay) the place where the worker is posted to (in this case Finland) which applies regardless of the fact that the employment contract is governed by the law of other country (in this case Poland). The assignability of these mandatory rule based claims governed by Finish law is also governed by Finish law by virtue of Art 14(2) of Rome I (see paras 56 and 57). The AG was helped in reaching this conclusion by Recital 23 of Rome I because posted workers are “weaker parties” who can benefit from special conflict-of-law rules (see para 53).