PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
September 20, 2025European Labour Law Journal2 citationsOpen Access

Article 3 in the Platform Work Directive on intermediaries: Joint liability or joint employment?

View Full Paper
ASAstrid Sanders

Key Points

  • Article 3 emphasizes protection for workers involved with intermediaries, highlighting the need for similar safeguards as those in direct contracts.
  • The directive's ambiguous wording could lead to varied interpretations by Member States, impacting its practical enforcement.
  • The text discusses connections between subcontracting, joint liability, and joint employment within the framework of the Directive.
  • It concludes with reflections on the evolving definition of an employer in the context of platform work regulation.

Abstract

This contribution explores a lesser discussed provision in the new Platform Work Directive (‘PWD’): Article 3 on ‘intermediaries’ (originally titled ‘subcontracting liability’ by the EP). Article 3 is possibly the most ambiguous provision in the Directive, for three reasons: the unusual drafting history of Article 3, the wording of Article 3 itself and, the amount of flexibility left to Member States to interpret Article 3 as they choose. Ultimately this means that Article 3 will likely have very divergent impact in practice. Article 3 provides that individuals providing work for an intermediary should enjoy the same level of protection ‘pursuant to the Directive’ as those contracting directly with digital labour platforms. There is also reference to joint and several liability, ‘where appropriate’. At the very least under Article 3, the employment presumption in Article 5 should also apply to intermediaries and the provisions on algorithmic management should apply directly to those in a subcontracting chain. The contribution details the unusual drafting history of Article 3, then contrasts Article 3's fit with other EU provisions on ‘subcontracting’, before discussing whether it was intended as, or might be interpreted as, alternatively a provision on joint liability or on joint employment. The final section provides a brief reflection on the concept of the employer, in light of the PWD.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Astrid Sanders (2025) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/68d46fc631b076d99fa69b7bhttps://doi.org/10.1177/20319525251375025
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper