As many of you may remember, in 2013 a 21-year-old Bank of America Merrill Lynch intern was found dead in a shower at his London flat after working for 72 hours in a row, died of an epileptic seizure.
Goldman Sachs is quick to answer back.
Go home before midnight, and don’t come back before 7am. The new rules, introduced for this summer’s crop of investment banking interns, have been introduced “to improve the overall work experience of our interns”, a Goldman Sachs spokesman said. All of its summer interns across the world were informed of the new working hours rule on their first day in the office earlier this month. (Guardian)
The EU's Working Time Directive (2003/88/EC) stipulates minimum standards applicable throughout the EU. The Directive requires the member states to guarantee certain working conditions to the employees. One of them is the rule of daily rest. Article 3 reads that 'Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that every worker is entitled to a minimum daily rest period of 11 consecutive hours per 24-hour period.' It seems that Goldman Sachs would fail this test - at least concerning its branches within the EU.
One can argue that Goldman Sachs' new rule concerns only summer interns who are not employees of the company. But in the context of the European labour law I beg to differ. The notion of 'worker' in the EU legislation, and notably in the Working Time Directive, has a large scope of application. The concept of 'worker' must be defined in accordance with objective criteria which distinguish the employment relationship by reference to the rights and obligations of the persons concerned (Blanpain).
The Karl Robert Kranemann case (Case C-109/04, Karl Robert Kranemann v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen) has ensured us that a trainee lawyer is covered by the protection as a 'worker' within the scope of the EU law, and such, is concerned by the stipulations of the Working Time Directive. According to the case law, the term 'worker' has a specific Community meaning and it is not to define narrowly. The essential feature of an employment relationship is, the Court said, is the fact that for a certain period of time a person performs services for and under the direction of another person in return for which he receives remuneration.
At least, Goldman Sachs pays for its interns. However, it puts them within the scope of the Working Time Directive in the EU.
The Karl Robert Kranemann case (Case C-109/04, Karl Robert Kranemann v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen) has ensured us that a trainee lawyer is covered by the protection as a 'worker' within the scope of the EU law, and such, is concerned by the stipulations of the Working Time Directive. According to the case law, the term 'worker' has a specific Community meaning and it is not to define narrowly. The essential feature of an employment relationship is, the Court said, is the fact that for a certain period of time a person performs services for and under the direction of another person in return for which he receives remuneration.
At least, Goldman Sachs pays for its interns. However, it puts them within the scope of the Working Time Directive in the EU.
No comments:
Post a Comment