Inter­pel­la­ti­on Docourt (24.3346): EU direc­ti­ve on plat­form work. Does Switz­er­land want to fol­low it?

Sub­mit­ted text

The EU recent­ly adopted a Direc­ti­ve on plat­form work adopted. This direc­ti­ve is an important step for­ward for employees working in the plat­form eco­no­my. It intro­du­ces two important prin­ci­ples: 1. plat­form com­pa­nies are auto­ma­ti­cal­ly con­side­red employers 2. More trans­pa­ren­cy is requi­red when using algo­rith­ms in work plan­ning.

Fol­lo­wing the adop­ti­on of the EU direc­ti­ve on plat­form work, we ask the Fede­ral Coun­cil to ans­wer the fol­lo­wing questions:

  • What adjust­ments would be neces­sa­ry and how could the rever­sal of the bur­den of pro­of be enshri­ned in law? Are the­re any con­side­ra­ti­ons in this direction?
  • What mea­su­res have the Con­fe­de­ra­ti­on and the can­tons taken to enforce court rulings that qua­li­fy plat­forms such as Uber or Uber Eats as employers, to sub­ject the­se com­pa­nies to labor law and to ensu­re that Uber or Uber Eats com­plies with its obli­ga­ti­ons as an employer?
  • How much effort have the social insu­rance funds put into pro­ce­s­sing and taking legal action against the plat­forms’ new con­tracts that pro­vi­de for self-employment?
  • How does the fede­ral govern­ment view the direc­ti­ve and what impact will it have on Switzerland?
  • Is the Fede­ral Coun­cil plan­ning to intro­du­ce trans­pa­ren­cy pro­vi­si­ons for the use of algorithms?

Justi­fi­ca­ti­on

Alt­hough the cur­rent laws in Switz­er­land are in prin­ci­ple suf­fi­ci­ent to qua­li­fy plat­forms as employers, an auto­ma­tic qua­li­fi­ca­ti­on would also make sen­se in our coun­try, as this would put a stop to mul­ti­na­tio­nal cor­po­ra­ti­ons that are acti­ve in the plat­form eco­no­my and syste­ma­ti­cal­ly per­form ille­gal work by pas­sing employees off as self-employed. The pre­sump­ti­on of an employment rela­ti­on­ship could be enshri­ned in law by amen­ding the Swiss Code of Obli­ga­ti­ons. The use of algo­rith­ms should also be based on the EU direc­ti­ve. Employees have the right to be infor­med about the func­tio­ning of auto­ma­ted systems and, abo­ve all, to chall­enge the resul­ting decis­i­ons.

Opi­ni­on of the Fede­ral Coun­cil of 15.5.2024

1. the Fede­ral Coun­cil, in the con­text of the report “Digi­ta­lizati­on – exami­na­ti­on of a more fle­xi­ble social secu­ri­ty law” of 27 Octo­ber 2021 (available at: www.bsv.admin.ch > Publi­ca­ti­ons & Ser­vices > Reports and expert opi­ni­ons > Fede­ral Coun­cil reports) ana­ly­zed in detail the legal frame­work and the various opti­ons for the fur­ther deve­lo­p­ment of social insu­rance law in rela­ti­on to the emer­ging digi­tal busi­ness models.

In the afo­re­men­tio­ned report, the Fede­ral Coun­cil spe­ci­fi­cal­ly exami­ned the advan­ta­ges and dis­ad­van­ta­ges of a sta­tu­to­ry regu­la­ti­on that would pre­su­me that plat­form workers are gain­ful­ly employed and the pos­si­bi­li­ty of over­tur­ning this pre­sump­ti­on by pro­vi­ding evi­dence to the con­tra­ry. The report con­clu­des that the­re is curr­ent­ly no need for fur­ther action in this regard.

2 The can­tons orga­ni­ze their ran­dom inspec­tion acti­vi­ties inde­pendent­ly on the basis of the Employment Act. They do this on a risk basis or on the basis of spe­ci­fic reports. The que­sti­on of the exi­stence of an employment rela­ti­on­ship is asses­sed by the Fede­ral Supre­me Court on a case-by-case basis. The can­to­nal labor inspec­to­ra­te (KAI) direct­ly affec­ted the­r­e­fo­re pri­ma­ri­ly imple­ments the decis­i­on issued and informs the other KAIs and SECO within the frame­work of exi­sting chan­nels about the expe­ri­en­ces made and the pro­ce­du­re they have cho­sen. As the con­trac­tu­al con­di­ti­ons of Uber/Uber Eats are con­stant­ly being adapt­ed, the decis­i­ons can often not be direct­ly trans­fer­red to other situa­tions wit­hout fur­ther ado.

3. the Swiss social secu­ri­ty system is fle­xi­ble enough to adapt to deve­lo­p­ments in the digi­tal eco­no­my and new forms of work. The legal qua­li­fi­ca­ti­on of plat­form workers the­r­e­fo­re poses no par­ti­cu­lar chall­enge for the social secu­ri­ty aut­ho­ri­ties. As with other gain­ful employment, it is car­ri­ed out on the basis of the actu­al eco­no­mic cir­cum­stances with a case-by-case assess­ment. The imple­men­ting aut­ho­ri­ties only incur addi­tio­nal costs if legal pro­ce­e­dings are initia­ted, as the­se can be very time-con­sum­ing and leng­thy. The ext­ent of the costs and expen­ses incur­red by the social insu­rance insti­tu­ti­ons in this regard is not known.

4 The Euro­pean direc­ti­ve on plat­form work has not yet been for­mal­ly adopted. In the view of the Fede­ral Coun­cil, it is the­r­e­fo­re too ear­ly to assess any con­se­quen­ces or deter­mi­ne any need for action.

5. the auto­ma­ted systems used by the plat­forms are alre­a­dy taken into account when deter­mi­ning social secu­ri­ty sta­tus if they have an impact on the actu­al eco­no­mic cir­cum­stances. As the Fede­ral Coun­cil sta­ted in its respon­se to the Inter­pel­la­ti­on Fel­ler (23.3516 “Fun­da­men­tal or tem­po­ra­ry ban on cer­tain arti­fi­ci­al intel­li­gence plat­forms”) has recor­ded, clo­se­ly moni­tors deve­lo­p­ments at inter­na­tio­nal level with regard to the regu­la­ti­on of arti­fi­ci­al intel­li­gence and will take the neces­sa­ry mea­su­res if requi­red.