![]() On the contrary, it is meant to take advantage both of the extension of the antidiscrimination protection beyond subordinate work and of the burden of proof regime. It is crucial in this regard to connect the protected ground of belief or personal convictions, as referred to in Legislative Decree no. In this case, however, trade unions decided to resort antidiscrimination legislation. 5 The Italian legal system specifically protects discrimination for reasons related to freedom and trade union activity (Article 15 and Article 28 of the Workers’ Statute). In particular, the unions alleged collective discrimination in corporate conduct on the basis of algorithmic management of trade union activity. ![]() ![]() 3įor the first time, a judge was asked to try to access the “black box” 4 and ascertain whether algorithms-the main driving force of ai at work-can constitute discriminatory behavior on behalf ( rectius: on the shoulders) of the company that uses them. It sentenced the defendant to remove the effects of its conduct and to pay compensation to the plaintiffs for nonpecuniary damage in the amount of 50,000 euros as well as for reimbursement of litigation costs. 2 The Court then passed on the main concern, concluding indirect discrimination in access to the digital booking of work sessions, conditions based on statistics relating to the “participation and reliability” of workers. The Court first decided on two preliminary issues: one regarding Deliveroo’s request to end the dispute because the algorithm was no longer in use the second concerning the application of antidiscrimination legislation invoked by the trade unions to riders (who are not contractually employees). This ruling is of interest not only for the Italian jurisdiction but also internationally because it is the first in Europe (if not the world) concerning algorithmic discrimination. ![]() The core legal aspect of this case is the possibility of an algorithm to discriminate, namely, on grounds of beliefs (as in the sense of participating to a collective action) or disability. The plaintiffs asked the Court to ascertain and declare the discrimination regarding the conditions of access and, in particular, of the processing parameters of the ranking system that affect priority of choice in work sessions without considering the cause that gave rise to the noncompliance with the session booked. The main issue of the dispute was the possible discrimination resulting from Deliveroo’s algorithm used at the time for the distribution and management of work flows among those riders who had made themselves available in advance by booking work sessions-known as slots. ![]() 216 of 2003-the implementation act of the Council Directive 2000/78/ ec establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation-before the Court of Bologna against the company Deliveroo Italia srl. In December 2019, three local federations affiliated with the main Italian trade union, the Italian General Confederation of Labour ( cgil), filed a complaint based on Article 5.2 of Legislative Decree no. The case, unlike many previous ones, does not deal with classification but instead with discrimination and algorithmic management, which can be a more complicated issue. A recent order by the Court of Bologna 1 opens a new and fascinating dimension in the legal and judicial affair of “riders” and on-demand work through digital platforms managed by multinational companies. The impact of artificial intelligence ( ai) and digitalization on work and its regulation is a continuous source of legal challenges for scholars and practitioners. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |