Un enfoque holístico del teletrabajo: desde los inconvenientes sufridos por los empleados hasta una «compensación justa» integral
| Autor | Matteo Avogaro |
| Cargo | Instituto de Estudios Laborales (IEL), ESADE Law School, Universitat Ramon Llull |
| Páginas | 1-16 |
https://idp.uoc.edu
IDP No. 36 (October, 2022) I ISSN 1699-8154 Journal promoted by the Law and Political Science Department
1
2022, Matteo Avogaro
of this edition: 2022, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
ARTICLE
A holistic approach to remote digital
work: from the inconveniences
suered by employees to a
comprehensive ‘fair compensation’
Matteo Avogaro
Institute for Labour Studies (IEL), ESADE Law School, Universitat Ramon Llull
Date of submission: May 2022
Accepted in: September 2022
Published in: October 2022
Abstract
The unprecedented surge of employees working remotely in Europe during the COVID-19 crisis, shone
a spotlight on some related disadvantages. Focusing on employees of the private sector, the most rele-
vant of these include additional professional costs, informal overtime, and psychosocial risks. Their sig-
nificant impact on employees seems to contrast with the EU model of digital transition and encourages
us to look for possible remedies. In light of this, the author suggests adopting a holistic perspective. He
proposes, thus, a vision of ‘fair compensation’ aimed at thoroughly neutralizing the negative impact
of remote digital work on employees. Moving from a comparative analysis of the legal framework of
France, Italy, and Spain – three EU medium/large economies which most used remote digital work
during the pandemic – the contribution provides a definition of fair compensation, identifies some of
its current highest standards and provides some insight into its possible practical implications.
Keywords
telework; holistic approach; COVID-19; informal overtime; psychosocial risks; fair compensation
https://idp.uoc.edu
Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
A holistic approach to remote digital work: from the inconveniences suffered by
employees to a comprehensive ‘fair compensation’
IDP No. 36 (October, 2022) I ISSN 1699-8154 Journal promoted by the Law and Political Science Department
2
2022, Matteo Avogaro
of this edition: 2022, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
Un enfoque holístico del teletrabajo: desde los inconvenientes
sufridos por los empleados hasta una «compensación justa» integral
Resumen
El aumento sin precedentes del número de empleados que teletrabajan en Europa, durante la crisis de
la COVID-19, puso de relieve algunos inconvenientes relacionados con este. Centrándonos en los em-
pleados del sector privado, entre los más relevantes se encuentran los costes profesionales adicionales,
las horas extras y los riesgos psicosociales. Su impacto significativo en los empleados parece contrastar
con el modelo de transición digital de la UE y nos anima a buscar posibles soluciones. En este sentido,
el autor sugiere adoptar una perspectiva holística. Por lo tanto, propone una visión de «remuneración
justa» destinada a neutralizar completamente el impacto negativo del teletrabajo en los empleados.
Tras un análisis comparativo del marco legal de Francia, Italia y España, las tres economías medianas/
grandes de la UE que más utilizaron el trabajo a distancia durante la pandemia, la propuesta propor-
ciona una definición de compensación justa, identifica algunas de sus normas más restrictivas en la
actualidad y proporciona algunas pistas sobre sus posibles implicaciones prácticas.
Palabras clave
teletrabajo; enfoque holístico; COVID-19; horas extras; riesgos psicosociales; compensación justa
https://idp.uoc.edu
Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
A holistic approach to remote digital work: from the inconveniences suffered by
employees to a comprehensive ‘fair compensation’
IDP No. 36 (October, 2022) I ISSN 1699-8154 Journal promoted by the Law and Political Science Department
3
2022, Matteo Avogaro
of this edition: 2022, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
1. Remote digital work, the
autonomy paradox and fair
compensation
Remote digital work
1
has been present in EU countries
for more than 20 years, and until recently, it was an op-
tion mostly for a small number of well-educated people
(OECD, 2021, 315).
This scenario radically changed with the COVID-19 pan-
demic. While before 2020, only around 19% of European
workers had arrangements to work remotely (Eurofound,
2020a, 7-9), data collected by Eurofound through the
e-survey Living, working and COVID-19 show that this rate
increased to 48% in the summer of 2020.
Even after vaccines succeeded in containing the worst
effects of COVID-19, for most of these workers, remote
digital work seems to be “here to stay”, assuming a hy-
brid form involving some days spent in the office each
week (Sostero et al., 2020, pp. 53-55). From a labour law
perspective, the increasing number of people working re-
motely makes the analysis of the pros and cons of remote
digital work more important.
Limiting the study to employees, remote digital work is
generally presented as a solution in their interest, allowing
them to enjoy increased autonomy and flexibility, a better
work-life balance, and greater job satisfaction (Eurofound,
ILO, 2017, p. 9). Nonetheless, in pre-Covid literature, some
negative aspects had already emerged. Reference is
made, in particular, to studies on the ‘autonomy paradox’.
This label covers the undesired effects that flexibility
and greater autonomy may have on employees working
remotely, such as increased work intensification, longer
and more irregular working hours, and higher stress levels
(among others, Mazmanian et al., 2013, pp. 1350-1351).
Research conducted during the pandemic further investi-
gated the negative impact of remote digital work (among
1. The term Remote digital work refers to “any type of work arrangement where workers work remotely, away from an employer’s premises
or fixed location, using digital technologies such as networks, laptops, mobile phones and the internet” (Eurofound, 2020a). Telework,
unless otherwise specified and for the solely purposes to ease the comparative analysis, is intended as a subset of remote digital work,
consisting of remote digital work carried out on a regular basis by employees.
2. The space available for this study allows to examine only employees with defined work schedules. The study will not address, hence, those
limited cases of remote digital employees effectively free to determine allocation and duration of their working time, like forfait-jours
in France (Florès, 2016, pp. 898-902) and ‘agile employees’ with their performance organized per phases, cycles and objectives in Italy
(Leccese, 2020, pp. 437-443).
others, ILO, 2020) – in particular if intensive – on the fi-
nancial and personal situation of employees. The primary
areas of distress, not exclusively due to pandemic circum-
stances, were: 1) additional professional costs; 2) informal
overtime; and 3) psychosocial risks (Lodovici, 2021, p. 41).
Additional professional costs are usually linked with the
need to set up a home office and to the more expensive
utility bills resulting from longer periods spent working
from home (ILO, 2020, p. 9 and p. 23).
Informal overtime is related to the increased work activity
undertaken outside normal working hours in order to com-
plete tasks or reach professional objectives (Eurofound,
2020b, p. 33). In the economic field, it leads to a discrep-
ancy between hours worked and wages, since (many of)
these additional hours are not paid or not registered.
As for health and wellbeing, informal overtime is a cause,
together with increased isolation and work intensity, of
the third disadvantage addressed in this contribution:
high exposure to psychosocial risks. That is, high levels of
stress and anxiety that may favour workaholism, depres-
sion and burnout (Eurofound, 2018).
This situation seems to contrast with the EU model of
digital transition, that “should have a positive impact on
workers and working conditions” (European Parliament,
2021, point C), and protect the “principles underpinning
[…] European social market economy”, which include
“minimum requirements on working time, health and
safety at work” (European Commission, 2021, p. 1).
This contribution, thus, aims to address possible remedies
for this issue by adopting a holistic perspective. Starting
from the disadvantages described above, it attempts to
provide a systematic and dynamic vision of fair compen-
sation. That is, one aimed at thoroughly neutralizing the
negative impact of remote digital work on the working
conditions of employees of the private sector.
2
https://idp.uoc.edu
Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
A holistic approach to remote digital work: from the inconveniences suffered by
employees to a comprehensive ‘fair compensation’
IDP No. 36 (October, 2022) I ISSN 1699-8154 Journal promoted by the Law and Political Science Department
4
2022, Matteo Avogaro
of this edition: 2022, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
The study will rely on a comparative legal analysis of
regulations for remote digital work in France, Italy, and
Spain (Section 2), chosen as the medium/large-sized EU
economies that most relied on this form of work during
the pandemic (Eurofound, 2020b, p. 33) and where the rel-
evant regulatory framework was already highly developed
before the COVID-19 crisis (Eurofound, 2020c, pp. 41-54).
Based on the outcomes of said analysis, the contribution will:
1) verify if it is possible to provide a comprehensive and
unitary definition of fair compensation; and
2) identify some of its current highest standards of em-
ployee protection.
2. Three national regulatory schemes
in the EU framework (Italy, France,
Spain): looking for common
patterns for fair compensation
In Europe, national regulations regarding remote digital
work among employees of the private sector found a
first impulse in the European Framework Agreement on
Telework (EFAT) executed in 2002 by the major European
social partners. EFAT is considered a milestone for the Eu-
ropean social dialogue, as the first collective agreement
executed in the framework of Article 155 (2) TFEU and
implemented autonomously by EU social partners.
EFAT introduced a common European definition of
telework (Clause 2), and basic principles relevant to the
aforementioned inconveniences suffered by remote digi-
tal employees, such as those regarding professional costs
(Clause 7); prevention of isolation in teleworkers (Clause
8); and workload and professional standards (Clause 9).
Furthermore, the implementation of EFAT (Ramos Marti,
Visser, 2008, pp. 519-523) left in the national legal frame-
works of most EU countries similar regulatory models for
telework or inspired further regulations concerning re-
mote digital work. This created a favourable environment
for the circulation of such a theory as fair compensation,
elaborated in this contribution through a comparison of
French, Italian and Spanish national regulations, all in-
spired, directly or indirectly, by EFAT.
A further relevant development in the EU social dialogue
occurred almost 20 years after EFAT. The Framework
Agreement on Digitalisation of 13 June 2020 (FAD), exe-
cuted by EU social partners and always in the framework
of Article 155 (2) TFEU, broaches the more general topic
of the digitalization of work, which already includes re-
mote digital work.
The prevalent methodological approach, and the early
stages of FAD’s implementation, make its impact on na-
tional regulations, for the moment, just prospective. Here,
then, it seems sufficient to refer to specific literature for
further details (among others, Sepulveda Gómez, 2021),
remembering that, in any case, the FAD might play an im-
portant future role in re-defining labour rules in the light
of the digitalization of work.
Based on this European perspective, the following para-
graphs will detail the current legal frameworks of France,
Italy and Spain. This will involve investigating the regulation
of the most widespread forms of remote digital work in these
countries, looking for regulatory patterns that may help lay
the foundations of a definition of fair compensation.
2.1. France
In France, the most common form of remote digital work
is telework, also extensively used during the pandemic
(Service-public.fr, 2022).
Telework is currently regulated by a flexible mosaic of sourc-
es. The Labour Code (Code du Travail, hereinafter C. Trav;
Articles L.1222-9, L.1222-10, and L.1222-11) is integrated by
two Cross-industry national agreements (Accord National
Interprofessionnel, ANI) executed by the major social part-
ners, covering most of sectors and extended nationwide by
the government: the ANI of 2005, which first implemented
the EFAT in France, and the ANI of 26 November 2020,
which mainly introduced best practices (Ray, 2020, 238).
According to Article L.1222-9 I (1) C. Trav., telework em-
braces work which might be carried out on the employer’s
premises, but is concretely carried out elsewhere using IT
technologies. It concerns employees working from home
regularly or occasionally (Geniaut, 2020, pp. 608-609).
As per Article L.1222-9 I (3-4) C. Trav., telework can be
implemented at a company level by various means: a
collective agreement, a charter unilaterally issued by
the employer after confrontation with the employees’
firm-level representative body, or an amendment to
https://idp.uoc.edu
Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
A holistic approach to remote digital work: from the inconveniences suffered by
employees to a comprehensive ‘fair compensation’
IDP No. 36 (October, 2022) I ISSN 1699-8154 Journal promoted by the Law and Political Science Department
5
2022, Matteo Avogaro
of this edition: 2022, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
individual employment agreements. The switch from
face-to-face work to telework normally requires the con-
sent of the employer and employee. Only in exceptional
situations, when telework becomes a resource for pro-
tecting employees and continuing business operations,
does Article L.1222-11 C. Trav. enable the employer to act
unilaterally, as happened during the Covid-19 pandemic
(Ministère du Travail, 2021, p. 366).
In line with Clause 4 of EFAT, Article L.1222-9 III C. Trav.
establishes that, in principle, a teleworker is entitled to be
treated in the same way as a normal employee (for a crit-
ical opinion, Ray, 2018, 55), and the ANI of 2020 specifies
that this equality of treatment also includes legal limits on
working hours (Article 3.1.2).
Moving onto fair compensation issues, the employers’
obligation to reimburse teleworkers’ additional profes-
sional costs is established by the ANIs – that is, through
collective bargaining – while until 2017, it was integrated
in Article L.1222-10 C. Trav. (Article 21, Ordonnance no.
2017-1387 of 22 September). The employer shall provide
teleworkers with the equipment necessary to work and
take on teleworkers’ additional professional costs sup-
ported “to carry out the job and in the interest of the
company” (Article 3.1.5, ANI 2020; Article 7, ANI 2005).
The employers’ obligation, thus, seems to refer to costs
directly generated by remote work, above all those for
communications expressly mentioned by the ANI of 2005.
From a practical perspective, there is an increasing num-
ber of company collective agreements setting specific
criteria for reimbursements: in most cases, consisting of
a lump-sum allowance (Ministère du Travail, 2021, p. 369).
An additional allowance for ‘occupying’ the employee’s
house for job-related purposes is finally due only when a
workstation is not available on the employer’s premises
(among others, Cour de Cassation, chambre Sociale [La-
bour division of the Supreme Court], March 27, 2019, no.
17-21.014, ECLI:FR:CCASS:2019:SO00534).
Employee protection against informal overtime and work
during rest periods relies, first and foremost, on the
3. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), in a judgment of 2019, established that national legislation introducing an “obligation,
consisting of setting up an objective, reliable and accessible system enabling the duration of time worked each day to be measured, is
necessary more generally for all workers in order to ensure the effectiveness of Directive 2003/88 […]” and of Directive 89/391/EEC;
see Federación de Servicios de Comisiones Obreras (CCOO) v Deutsche Bank SAE - CJEU (Grand Chamber), May 14th, 2019 (no. C-55/18
- ECLI:EU:C:2019:402), par. 65. Member States are requested, hence, to update their internal legislation to comply with the judgment.
For doubts about compliance of France, Auzero et al., 2021, p. 1036.
right to disconnect. Although not defined by French law,
in general, this corresponds to the “worker’s right to be
able to disengage from work and refrain from engaging in
work-related electronic communications […] during non-
work hours” (Eurofound, 2019). Article L.1222-9 II (4) C.
Trav. establishes that the collective agreement or charter
issued by the employer for implementing telework shall
regulate the right to disconnect, specifying the time slots
in which the employer is allowed to contact the teleworker.
Periodical collective bargaining sessions to regulate the
right to disconnect for all employees – not just teleworkers
– are, finally, mandatory for companies with fifty employ-
ees or more (Article L.2242-17 C. Trav.). In this domain,
thus, the C. Trav. does not introduce default solutions. It
only sets a framework that helps to determine the most
suitable solution on a case-by-case basis.
A generalized obligation to register teleworkers’ working
time, conversely, is absent in France. Employers are, in
fact, required to choose between “modalities of control of
working time” – that may include registration – or “mo-
dalities to regulate workload”, like a regular confrontation
with employees, held individually or collectively (Article
L.1222-9 II (3); ANACT, 2020). In any case, this gap seems
offset by procedural rules set by Article L.3171-4 (1-2) C.
Trav: in the event of disputes over unpaid extra hours, the
employee is requested only to provide factual elements to
support their claim, against which the employer must jus-
tify the hours they pretend the employee actually worked
(Miné, 2019, p. 493). This provision is strengthened by re-
cent French case-law, which softened the criteria to scruti-
nize factual elements provided by employees – admitting,
for instance, low-detailed counting hours – increasing the
cases when employers shall reply by providing objective
elements concerning hours worked by employees, such
as a record of them (among others, Cour de Cassation,
chambre Sociale, January 27, 2021, no. 17-31.046, ECLI:-
FR:CCASS:2021:SO00138). This partial reversal of the
burden of proof, despite some doubts about its thorough
compliance with pro-labour requirements set by CJEU
case-law,
3
seems to encourage employers to adopt effec-
https://idp.uoc.edu
Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
A holistic approach to remote digital work: from the inconveniences suffered by
employees to a comprehensive ‘fair compensation’
IDP No. 36 (October, 2022) I ISSN 1699-8154 Journal promoted by the Law and Political Science Department
6
2022, Matteo Avogaro
of this edition: 2022, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
tive mechanisms to control working time, restricting the
scope for abusive conducts exploiting teleworkers.
The employer’s obligation to organize a yearly interview
with each teleworker to analyse workload and working
conditions (Article L.1222-10 C. Trav.) is, finally, another
contribution to contrast informal overtime.
Regarding psychosocial risks, besides measures against
informal overtime, employers must protect teleworkers
according to general health and safety rules. This encom-
passes, as per Articles L.4121-1ff C. Trav., the obligation to
protect employees’ physical and mental health through
training, information, and the adoption of an adequate
work organization as well as measures to prevent occu-
pational hazards. Burnout and other ailments linked to
psychosocial risks do not feature on the list of presumed
occupational illnesses (Richevaux, 2021, 9ff.). Because of
this, the burden of proof of suffering from such an ailment
recognized as an occupational illness is a heavy one. The
employee must demonstrate that the illness is directly and
essentially caused by the work activity and that they have
been permanently incapacitated at a rate no lower than
25% (Kessler, 2020, p. 326). These high requirements make
it difficult to access social security treatments. This has led
some affected employees to explore alternative solutions,
such as attempting to have psychosocial illnesses recog-
nized as work-related accidents (Kessler, 2020, pp. 311-312).
2.2. Italy
Italy, unlike France, did not make ‘traditional’ telework their
main response to the pandemic, opting instead for a wide-
spread application of the more common regulatory frame-
work of agile work (lavoro agile; Albi, 2020, pp. 783-790).
Although telework has already been regulated for private
employees through the National cross-sectoral agreement
(Accordo Interconfederale) of 9 June 2004, which trans-
posed EFAT, occupational health and safety issues, togeth-
er with employer and employee scepticism, prevented it
from becoming mainstream (for all these aspects, Alessi,
2018, p. 817). In a further effort to promote the digitaliza-
tion of work, parliament intervened in 2017, introducing
a new regulatory scheme for remote work performances:
agile work.
Agile work is regulated by Articles 18-24 of Law 22 May
2017 no. 81 integrated, with little added, by a Trilateral
agreement of 7 December 2021 (Protocollo nazionale sul
lavoro in modalità agile), that has a widespread applica-
tion since signed by major social partners, together with
the government (Ichino, 2021).
Agile work concerns only employees and is defined as a
way to carry work out partially on employers’ premises
and partially elsewhere, with no fixed workstation (Article
18 of Law 81/2017). Despite the nominal issue, the struc-
tural differences between agile work and telework are not
particularly significant. Agile work, in essence, is a more
flexible form of Italian telework, allowing employees to
work away from employers’ premises and in a non-regular
pattern (Tiraboschi, 2017, p. 944).
With regard to regulatory content, agile work does not
formally consist of a national implementation of EFAT, al-
though it shares some of the underlying principles of tele-
work. The equality of treatment between agile employees
and employees working in person, established by Article
20 of Law 81/2017, recalls the similar principle for telework
of Article 4 of the National cross-sectoral agreement of
2004. In addition, agile work (Article 19 of Law 81/2017)
and telework (Article 3 of the National cross-sectoral
agreement of 2004) have both a voluntary nature.
Employer and employee must normally execute a written
agreement to access the agile work scheme (Article 19 of
Law 81/2017). A unilateral switch from face-to-face work
to agile work was exceptionally allowed only during the
pandemic, when the Italian legislator made this option
available for employers. (Prime Minister’s Decree of 1
March 2020, art. 4 (1), lett. a). These provisions temporari-
ly allowed employers to adopt full-time remote agile work
in order to comply with public health measures aimed at
containing the pandemic (Brollo, 2020, pp. 180-181).
Furthermore, agile work regulations are relevant in the
field of fair compensation.
Professional costs sustained by agile employees are not
directly addressed by Law 81/2017. According to Article 5
(1) of the Trilateral agreement of 2021, it is the employer
who “normally provides the technological and IT instru-
ments” needed to work remotely and who ensures their
maintenance. Furthermore, as per Article 5 (2), “if the
parties agree to utilize IT instruments belonging to the
employee”, it also falls to them to establish (or not) an
allowance for employees’ additional professional costs.
https://idp.uoc.edu
Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
A holistic approach to remote digital work: from the inconveniences suffered by
employees to a comprehensive ‘fair compensation’
IDP No. 36 (October, 2022) I ISSN 1699-8154 Journal promoted by the Law and Political Science Department
7
2022, Matteo Avogaro
of this edition: 2022, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
These allowances, thus, are anyway eventual. The Trilater-
al agreement, finally, does not indicate further criteria for
determining their amount, and this aspect seems to have
been delegated to lower bargaining levels or to individual
agile work agreements.
With regard to informal overtime and work during rest pe-
riods, agile employees normally are subject to legal limits
relating to maximum working hours. Furthermore, overtime
is usually forbidden by collective agreements or only allowed
upon an employer’s authorization (Avogaro, 2018, p. 13).
Disconnection is recognized as a right of agile employees
(Article 19 of Law 81/2017 and Article 2 of Decree-Law 13
March 2021, no. 30; Dagnino, Menegotto, 2021). In this view,
Article 3 of the Trilateral agreement provides a broad defi-
nition of disconnection, which includes employees’ right
(i) not to work during rest periods, even offline, and (ii)
to disable communication devices while absent on leave.
In any case, the implementation of measures for discon-
nection is delegated by Article 19 (2) of Law 81/2017 to in-
dividual agreements between employers and employees,
regardless of the weaker bargaining power of the latter.
Meanwhile, collective agreements that could address this
issue usually establish mere prohibitions on contacting
agile employees during normal rest periods or outside
specific time slots, without further details (for instance,
FCA agreement of 12 March 2018; ING bank agreement of
4 August 2020). The right to disconnect, therefore, risks
remaining ‘on paper’, mostly in smaller companies where
trade unions are usually not present.
Furthermore, Italy has not yet implemented the obligation
to register working time through objective, reliable, and
accessible instruments, as requested by judgment C-55/18
CJEU (supra, footnote no. 3). According to Article 5 of Leg-
islative Decree of 8 April 2003 no. 66 and Article 39 (2)
of Decree-Law 25 June 2008 no. 112, employers must only
report (not punctually register), daily, the working hours
of each employee and, separately, overtime. Nevertheless,
the use of reliable instruments to ensure transparency of
these data and of their collection process is not requested.
In addition, civil procedural rules do not set a protective
framework for agile employees, unlike in France. In Italy,
in fact, case law has repeatedly affirmed that the burden
of proof of overtime hours lies completely with employees
(Cassazione Civile [Supreme Court], 16 February 2009, no.
3714, ECLI:IT:CASS:2009:3714:CIV). This context seems to
make it easier to conceal cases of unpaid work.
Finally, Law 81/2017 does not directly tackle psychosocial
risks. In any case, they seem to be included in the employ-
ers’ information duties regarding risks associated with
agile work (Article 22 of Law 81/2017). Moreover, Article
3 (10) of Legislative Decree 9 April 2008 no. 81 extends to
agile work the occupational health and safety obligations
for employees operating through display screens. These
include employers’ duties to carry out a specific job-re-
lated risk assessment – also aimed at preventing isolation
among agile employees – to inform and train employees
according to the results of this assessment, and to mon-
itor their health (Pelusi, 2017, par. 3). However, health
problems resulting from mental fatigue, anxiety and work-
aholism do not feature on the list of ailments considered
by law to be occupational illnesses (Decree of Ministry of
Labour, 9 April 2008). Affected employees may therefore
access the specific measures for the victims of occupa-
tional ailments only by assuming the (difficult) burden of
proof concerning the link between the illness and their
work activity (Cinelli, 2020, 515-521).
2.3. Spain
In Spain, remote work and telework have traditionally
shared the same regulatory framework, which has been
also used to help manage the pandemic (Álvarez Cuesta,
2020, pp. 192-194).
The most recent regulation for remote work/telework was
introduced in 2020 by the Royal Decree-Law no. 28 of 22
September, and confirmed by Parliament through Law 9
July 2021 no. 10. The new systematization reflects the con-
tents of a pre-agreement reached by the main social part-
ners with the government (Vicente Gómez, 2020), and it
seems of eminent importance since it sets the standard
for the post-COVID-19 era.
Law 10/2021 has a domain limited to employees. Articles
1-2 define remote work as any work undertaken regularly
– that is, for a period of time corresponding to at least
30% of working time calculated in a reference period of 3
months, or the corresponding proportional percentage on
the basis of the duration of the employment agreement
(in this sense, and for further critical observations about
the reference period, Thibault Aranda, 2021, pp. 108-110)
– from home or from a place other than an employer’s
premises. Telework, as defined by Article 2, is a subset
of remote work encompassing work carried out using IT
devices. Normally, there is no relevant difference in the
https://idp.uoc.edu
Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
A holistic approach to remote digital work: from the inconveniences suffered by
employees to a comprehensive ‘fair compensation’
IDP No. 36 (October, 2022) I ISSN 1699-8154 Journal promoted by the Law and Political Science Department
8
2022, Matteo Avogaro
of this edition: 2022, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
rules introduced by the reform of 2020-21 for remote work
and telework, although in some cases – including the right
to disconnect (Article 18) – the legislator specifies that in
the implementation of Law 10/2021 the condition of tele-
workers shall be ‘especially’ considered.
Having re-affirmed the equality of treatment between
remote employees and those working in person (Article
4) – that includes application to teleworkers of legal lim-
its about maximum working time and rest periods – Law
10/2021 points out the ‘voluntary principle’: access to the
remote work scheme is always subject to an individual writ-
ten agreement between employer and employee (Article 5).
Like in France and in Italy, Spanish regulation also contains
some measures relevant to fair compensation. In terms of
additional professional costs, Law 10/2021 seems to be in line
with EFAT. According to Article 11, the employer has an obli-
gation to provide – and maintain – the equipment needed by
employees to work remotely. Article 12 adds an employer’s
obligation to sustain/reimburse additional professional costs
supported by teleworkers, but only when directly linked to
the aforementioned equipment, functional to the remote
work – for instance, those for electricity or internet con-
nection (Aguilera Izquierdo, 2021, pp. 279-281; for a critical
perspective, concerning in particular Bring Your Own Device
policies, Cremades Chueca, 2020, pp. 132-140). The determi-
nation of said costs and the mode of reimbursement, howev-
er, is delegated by Article 12 (2) to collective bargaining. Re-
garding this aspect, an analysis of 230 collective agreements
addressing telework negotiated in 2011-2020 showed that
only 21% of them see the employer ensuring reimbursement
or taking charge of some additional professional costs (see,
for instance, Article 9.7 of collective agreement Europcars IB
S.A.). Moreover, just 4% of the agreements go beyond the
reimbursements of expenses for internet connection, such
as Telefonica On the Spot Services S.A.U. (for the overall
analysis, Pérez del Prado, 2022, pp. 129-138). The scope for
improvement following the introduction of Law 10/2021,
therefore, seems significant, while a key challenge appears
to involve ensuring that the recently-introduced provisions
are effectively implemented.
To contrast informal overtime and unpaid work during rest
periods, Law 10/2021 relies on the obligation to register
working time and on the right to disconnect.
The current obligation to register working time was intro-
duced, for all employees, by the Royal Decree-Law 8 March
2019 no. 8. It is regulated by Article 34 (9) of the Spanish
Workers’ Statute (Royal Legislative Decree of 23 October
2015 no. 2) and recalled, for remote employees, by Article
14 of Law 10/2021. It requires employers to keep, through
reliable instruments, records of the working hours of each
employee, including the actual daily start and end times.
The introduction of this ‘transparent’ register appears to
render Spain compliant with the requirements of judgment
C-55/18 of the CJEU (supra, footnote no. 3). The burden
of proof concerning undue overtime normally lies instead
with the claimant-employee (Article 217 (2) Law 1/2000 of
7 January), who can rely on the aforementioned register.
In this view, part of the doctrine (González Gónzalez, 2020,
par. I.1-I.3), leveraging former case law regarding specific
employers’ duties to keep a register, argues that the bur-
den of proof should shift on the defendant-employer in the
event of a breach of the obligation to register working time.
The right to disconnect was introduced in Spain by Arti-
cle 88 of the Organic Law 5 December 2018 no. 3. Arti-
cle 18 of Law 10/2021 recalls it, interpreting the right to
disconnect for remote employees and teleworkers in a
more extensive way. That is, as a position of guarantee of
employers (Trujillo Pons, 2020, 59; amplius, also relating
the effectiveness issue, Cremades Chueca, 2020, 132ff.),
with the latter required to ensure that employees do not
receive requests and that they are not expected to work
offline during rest periods.
Both the obligation to register working time and the right
to disconnect can be implemented through a unilateral
regulation issued by the employer following a confronta-
tion with employees’ representatives.
Implementation through collective bargaining, conversely,
is encouraged by law but not mandatory (Tascón Lopez,
2018, 45ff.). Notwithstanding, collective agreements seem
intended to play a crucial role, including as the place to
address further important issues relating to working time.
This includes availability periods that, especially when
involving real-time intervention, if too frequent and/or
extended, may present a risk to the health of remote em-
ployees, in addition to preventing them from actually ben-
efitting from a flexible schedule (Article 13, Law 10/2021).
For these reasons, part of the doctrine advocates for an
intervention of collective bargaining to further limit the
number and duration of teleworkers’ availability peri-
ods during the day, as well as for enhanced monitoring
through the implementation of a dedicated section for
availability periods in the register of working time (Arrieta
Idiakez, 2021, 274ff.).
https://idp.uoc.edu
Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
A holistic approach to remote digital work: from the inconveniences suffered by
employees to a comprehensive ‘fair compensation’
IDP No. 36 (October, 2022) I ISSN 1699-8154 Journal promoted by the Law and Political Science Department
9
2022, Matteo Avogaro
of this edition: 2022, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
Psychosocial risks, as well as ergonomic and organizational
ones, must undergo – according to Article 16 of Law 10/2021
– an enhanced examination during the mandatory assess-
ment of job-related risks relating to remote work/telework
that the employer must conduct (Alegre Nueno, 2021).
With regard to this, some concerns have been expressed
(see, also for other related issues, Mella Méndez, 2021, pp.
192-198) as to the possibility, introduced by Article 16 (2),
of conducting the risk assessment concerning the remote
workplace through employee self-evaluation, in the event
that they had a valid reason to refuse an external visit, in
particular when the workplace coincides with their domi-
cile. This is, in essence, because the employee might not
have the adequate skills to carry out a comprehensive eval-
uation, although Law 10/2021 already incorporates some
remedies, such as the employer’s obligation to ensure that
the company’s occupational risk prevention service assists
teleworkers in this process. Furthermore, this framework
is integrated by the employer’s duty to inform and train
employees about job-related risks, to monitor their health
conditions and to take consequential measures (Articles 18-
19 and 22 of Law 31/1995 of 8 November, and Article 4 of
Royal Decree 488/1997 of 14 April). Nonetheless, phenom-
ena like stress and burnout are not yet included on the list
of proper occupational illnesses (Royal Decree 1299/2006
of 10 November). Consequently, affected teleworkers and
remote employees may access allowances and reimburse-
ment provided by the Spanish social security system only
by demonstrating the direct and exclusive link between the
illness and their work activity (Ginès i Fabrellas, 2021, pp.
116-121): a difficult burden of proof when dealing with illness-
es with potentially hybrid causes, such as those resulting
from psychosocial risks.
3. Dening fair compensation
and its highest standards of
protection for remote digital
employees
The principal purpose of this study is to verify the pos-
sibility of providing a comprehensive definition of fair
compensation for the inconveniences due to remote
digital work – especially if intensive – and concerning em-
ployees of the private sector. That is, regular teleworkers
and employees working remotely frequently, although in
a non-regular pattern, as can happen for Italian ‘agile’
employees. In this sense, the comparative legal analysis
conducted in Section 2 provided useful outcomes.
First, some 20 years after the implementation of EFAT,
in all the addressed countries the regulatory framework
still establishes a right for remote digital employees to a
treatment equal to/not worse than those working in per-
son (see Article L.1222-9 III C. Trav. for France, Article 20
(1) Law 81/2017 for Italy, Article 4 Law 10/2021 for Spain).
The analysis of national measures implementing this
principle in the areas of distress addressed in this article
(additional professional costs, informal overtime, and
psychosocial risks) emphasizes that the recent trend is to
intend this equality of treatment as substantial, not just
formal, and that it can be ensured through customized –
quantitative and/or qualitative – measures.
For instance, quantitative measures include those that
compensate additional professional costs incurred by
remote digital employees. In this case, remote digital
employees receive consideration of the same kind as
employees working in person (monetary wage and reim-
bursements/allowances), whose amount can be increased
in order to cope with additional costs affecting employees
working remotely, such as those for internet bills.
A qualitative dimension is more often linked to solu-
tions addressing informal overtime and the prevention
of psychosocial risks. Fair compensation aimed at
equality of treatment, in these contexts, may consist
of additional and/or different prerogatives from those
of employees working in person, designed accounting
for the inconveniences typical of remote digital work.
This is the case, in Italy, for the right to disconnect, or,
in France, for the right to periodical employer/employ-
ee meetings to adjust workload. Conversely, when the
prerogatives of remote digital employees are the same
as those working in person – such as the right to the
prevention of occupational risks – the qualitative differ-
ence lies in the content of the performance required of
the party who must guarantee this right (generally, the
employer). For instance, the risk assessment for remote
digital employees shall give more relevance to psycho-
social job-related hazards, especially linked to isolation,
than that for people working in person.
https://idp.uoc.edu
Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
A holistic approach to remote digital work: from the inconveniences suffered by
employees to a comprehensive ‘fair compensation’
IDP No. 36 (October, 2022) I ISSN 1699-8154 Journal promoted by the Law and Political Science Department
10
2022, Matteo Avogaro
of this edition: 2022, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
Finally, in terms of regulatory policy, these quantitative and
qualitative measures are all included in statutory regulations
for remote digital work, or in collective agreements, company
practices and individual agreements implementing the law.
Based on these concepts, it seems possible to attempt to
provide a definition of a global approach to the causes
of distress linked with remote digital work. This umbrella
concept, termed fair compensation, corresponds to: “The
integrated set of measures to ensure to remote digital
employees a substantial working and financial treatment at
least equal to the one of comparable employees working in
presence, levelling all the inconveniences due to working
remotely in a given company, with the relevant measures
that can be adopted through law, by means of collective or
individual agreements, and/or through company practices,
and may have a qualitative and/or quantitative nature”.
A concept that could become the basis for specific leg-
islation or collective bargaining sessions, aimed at sys-
tematically addressing the inconveniences characterizing
remote digital work in a specific context. Harmonically
structuring compensatory measures to ensure that these
employees receive treatment actually equal to that of
comparable people working in person.
Having provided a definition of fair compensation, the
outcomes of the comparative legal analysis carried out in
Section 2 also enable us to try to determine its current
highest standards of protection for the three areas of
distress addressed by this contribution.
This exercise can be useful in providing benchmarks for
other EU countries, given that these highest standards
of protection are based on measures already adopted in
France, Italy and Spain. That is, the EU Member States
with the greatest experience in remote work during the
pandemic, and that prior to the health crisis had already
developed advanced legislation to compensate for the
disadvantages of remote digital work. Workers’ organi-
zations, EU and national institutions may also use these
highest standards for fair compensation as a ‘litmus test’
to determine which EU countries are actually ensuring ad-
equate working conditions for remote digital employees,
preventing the negative impact of digitalization.
As for professional costs, Articles 11-12 of Spanish Law
10/2021 seem to provide the best treatment, establishing
in law that the employer shall provide employees with the
equipment to work remotely and the right to reimburse-
ment of additional costs, albeit only when directly linked
to the aforementioned equipment, functional to work
duties. France ensures a similar treatment, but through
the ANIs of 2005-2020 which, unlike the law, may be der-
ogated by further collective bargaining, after the reforms
of 2016-2017 which overturned the favourability principle
formerly rooted in the French industrial relations system
(Rehfeldt, Vincent, 2018, pp. 11-14). Part of French doctrine
(Bernard, 2021, pp. 52-55) argues that the right to reim-
bursement should result from a general principle estab-
lished by case law, not directly concerning telework (Cour
de Cassation, chambre Sociale, February 25, 1998, no.
95-44096). Nonetheless, in this latter case, the possibility
of reimbursement seems less straightforward, requiring
the intervention of a judge and being subject to possible
fluctuations in case law. In Italy, finally, allowances for any
undue cost are not mandatory.
France and Spain can be considered benchmarks in the
prevention of informal overtime and work during rest pe-
riods, albeit through different measures. Both countries
recognize the right of remote digital employees to discon-
nect, which, in France, is also assisted by firm-level man-
datory bargaining sessions for medium/large companies.
Spain integrates the right to disconnect with an obligation
to a ‘transparent’ registration of working time, inspired by
case law of CJEU (Article 14 of Law 10/2021). According to
part of the doctrine (González González, 2020, par. I.1-I.3),
this obligation, read in the light of Spanish rules of civil pro-
cedure, should also shift onto the employer the burden of
proof for unpaid extra hours when registration is missing.
In France, registration of working time for teleworkers
is not mandatory. Nevertheless, the burden of proof for
unpaid work is partially reversed, requiring the defend-
ant-employer to justify that informal working hours did
not take place, after the demandant-employee presented
relevant elements of facts (Article L.3171-4 (1-2) C. Trav.).
An exercise for which French case law inspired to CJEU
judgment C-55/18 always more frequently seems requir-
ing objective elements to the employer-defendant, such
as a record of hours worked. Moreover, French teleworkers
have the right to meet once a year with the employer to
examine workload issues.
In the opinion of the author of this contribution, both
countries adopted a rather solid protective system where
https://idp.uoc.edu
Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
A holistic approach to remote digital work: from the inconveniences suffered by
employees to a comprehensive ‘fair compensation’
IDP No. 36 (October, 2022) I ISSN 1699-8154 Journal promoted by the Law and Political Science Department
11
2022, Matteo Avogaro
of this edition: 2022, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
the right to disconnect is integrated by measures easing
the proof of informal overtime, helping illegal conduct
to emerge.
Italy, instead, appears lower still on the scale. The Trilater-
al agreement of December 2021 includes a broad version
of the right to disconnect, encompassing both the right
not to receive solicitations and the right not to work at all
during rest periods. Nonetheless, the employers’ duty to
annotate working time is not assisted by transparency and
reliability requirements, unlike in Spain. In addition, the
burden of proof of informal overtime, according to settled
case law, rests entirely with the employee.
Regarding psychosocial risks, the highest standard for
fair compensation, aside from measures about working
time, seems common to all the countries in questions,
in accordance also with the coordination effect of
Directives 89/391/EEC and 90/270/EEC on national
regulations. This issue is included in the more general
employers’ duty to inform employees and to adopt meas-
ures to prevent occupational risks generated by remote
digital work, which, as pointed out in Sections 1-2, are
different from those of employees working in person,
especially regarding the psychosocial, ergonomic, and
organizational spheres.
Conclusions
Remote digital work seems, for many private employees
in Europe, bound to become the new normal following the
health crisis, alternating with some days per week spent
in the workplace. It has great potential but, at the same
time, may give rise to disadvantages for employees, es-
pecially if a significant part of the work duties are carried
out remotely. The most common of these are additional
professional costs, long working hours leading to informal
overtime, and mental health issues due to increased psy-
chosocial risks.
To prevent these (and other possible) disadvantages, the
EFAT had already affirmed in 2002 that remote (tele-)
workers should be treated like comparable employees
working in person (Clause 4). The analysis conducted in
this contribution of the current regulatory frameworks
of France, Italy, and Spain has highlighted that today, this
equality of treatment cannot be merely formal but rather
should have a substantial nature and rely on customized
qualitative and/or quantitative measures specific to re-
mote digital employees.
In this view, an umbrella concept leading to a holistic
approach to the various disadvantages of remote digital
work might contribute to the achievement of substantial
equality of treatment. Therefore, the proposal developed
here attempts to address the solutions required for such
inconveniences from a global point of view. This, by
introducing the concept of fair compensation, intended
as the integrated set of qualitative and/or quantitative
measures to ensure that remote digital employees
receive substantial working and financial treatment at
least equal to that of comparable employees working in
person, levelling all the inconveniences due to working
remotely for a given company.
From a practical perspective, fair compensation may be-
come a unique chapter for legislation and/or collective
negotiations, favouring the development of regulations
addressing the inconveniences suffered by remote digital
employees from a holistic perspective to provide them
with more systematic protection.
Some useful measures for integrating into a manifesto
for fair compensation could be provided by the bench-
marks identified by comparative legal analysis concern-
ing France, Italy, and Spain, for the three areas of distress
addressed by this study. These EU countries are deemed
to be those with the current highest standards of pro-
tection for remote digital employees, and the related
benchmarks may, thus, serve as a yardstick for measures
adopted by other Member States dealing with the same
issues (Section 3).
In addition, the broad concept of fair compensation
is conceived to be flexible and open to evolution. It
should, then, allow for the framing of multiple types of
disadvantages suffered by remote digital employees, as
a dimension of a whole. This might pave the way for
further research that deals with new aspects: for in-
stance, fair compensation for the scarce social learning
of employees working mostly remotely. Alternatively,
this could address, from a gender-based perspective,
different psychosocial risks characterizing women and
men due to the interaction of remote digital work with
the unbalanced distribution of family and/or childcare
duties.
https://idp.uoc.edu
Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
A holistic approach to remote digital work: from the inconveniences suffered by
employees to a comprehensive ‘fair compensation’
IDP No. 36 (October, 2022) I ISSN 1699-8154 Journal promoted by the Law and Political Science Department
12
2022, Matteo Avogaro
of this edition: 2022, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
Finally, the fair compensation approach was developed by
looking at three legal frameworks for remote digital work,
all inspired, directly or indirectly, by EFAT. This has also
served as a reference for regulations adopted in most oth-
er EU countries. This common background could ease the
circulation of the fair compensation approach, contribut-
ing to the implementation of the European Pillar of Social
Rights, and in particular of its 5th, 9th and 10th principles,
aimed, respectively, at providing European workers with
secure and adaptable employment, work-life balance, and
healthy, safe and well-adapted work environments.
https://idp.uoc.edu
Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
A holistic approach to remote digital work: from the inconveniences suffered by
employees to a comprehensive ‘fair compensation’
IDP No. 36 (October, 2022) I ISSN 1699-8154 Journal promoted by the Law and Political Science Department
13
2022, Matteo Avogaro
of this edition: 2022, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
References
AGUILERA IZQUIERDO, R. (2021). “Los derechos económicos de los trabajadores a distancia: retribución y compensación
o abono de gastos”. In: DE LOS COBOS ORIHUEL, F.P., THIBAULT ARANDA, J. (coord.). El trabajo a distancia. Madrid:
Wolters Kluwer, pp. 253-286.
ALBI, P. (2020). “Il lavoro agile fra emergenza e transizione”. In: Massimario di Giurisprudenza del Lavoro, no. 4, pp. 771-794.
ALEGRE NUENO, M. (2021). “La prevención de riesgos laborales en el trabajo a distancia”. In: LÓPEZ BALAGUER, M., El
trabajo a distancia en el RDL 28/2020. Valencia: Tirant Lo Blanch, pp. 217-256.
ALESSI, C. (2018). “Lavoro e conciliazione nella legislazione recente”. In: Diritto delle Relazioni Industriali, no. 3, pp. 804-821.
ÁLVAREZ CUESTA, H. (2020). “Del recurso al teletrabajo como medida de emergencia al futuro del trabajo a distancia”.
In: Lan Harremanak, no. 43, p. 175-201. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1387/lan-harremanak.21722
ANACT (Agence nationale pour l’amélioration des conditions de travail) (2020). “Coronavirus: télétravail, management
à distance et régulation de la charge” [institutional web page].
ARRIETA IDIAKEZ, F.J. (2021). “Consecuencias de la disponibilidad en el trabajo a distancia”. In: RODRÍGUEZ-PIÑERO
ROJO, M., TODOLÍ SIGNES, A. (dir.). Trabajo a distancia y teletrabajo: análisis del marco normativo vigente. Cizur
Menor: Aranzadi-Thomson Reuters, pp. 267-284.
AUZERO, G.; BAUGARD, D.; DOCKES, E. (2021). Droit du travail. Paris: Dalloz.
AVOGARO, M. (2018). “Lavoro agile e ‘work-life balance’: il diritto di disconnessione alla prova dell’autonomia collettiva”.
Giustiziacivile.com [online], no. 7.
BERNARD, S. (2021). Le code du télétravailleur. 1st ed. Paris: Dalloz.
BROLLO, M. (2020). “Il lavoro agile alla prova della emergenza epidemiologica”. In: GAROFALO, D. (2020). Welfare e
Lavoro nella Emergenza Epidemiologica. Bergamo: ADAPT University Press, pp. 167-208.
CINELLI, M. (2020). Diritto della Previdenza Sociale. 15th ed. Turin: Giappichelli.
CREMADES CHUECA, O. (2020). “Una panorámica a la desconexión digital desde una perspectiva empleadora”. In: TOS-
CANI GIMÉNEZ, D.; TRUJILLO PONS, F. (coord.). La desconexión digital en el trabajo. Cizur Menor: Aranzadi-Thomson
Reuters, pp. 115-140.
DAGNINO, E.; MENEGOTTO, M. (2021). “Note a caldo sul diritto alla disconnessione: rafforzare è bene, ma ‘con juicio’”.
In: Bollettino ADAPT, no. 19.
Eurofound, ILO (2017). Working anytime, anywhere: the effects on the world of work. Luxembourg-Geneva: Publications
Office of the European Union and the International Labour Office.
Eurofound (2018). Burnout in the workplace: a review of data and policy responses in the EU. Luxembourg: Publications
Office of the European Union.
Eurofound (2019). Right to disconnect [Industrial Relations Dictionary].
Eurofound (2020a). Telework and ICT-based mobile work: Flexible working in the digital age. Luxembourg: Publications
Office of the European Union.
Eurofound (2020b). Living, working and Covid-19. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Eurofound (2020c). Right to disconnect in the 27 EU Member States [Working Paper, WPEF20019], pp. 56-61.
European Commission (2021). Better working conditions for a stronger social Europe: harnessing the full benefits of
digitalisation for the future of work, [communication]. [COM(2021) 761 final].
European Parliament (2021). “Resolution with recommendations to the Commission on the right to disconnect”. Official
Journal of the European Union C 456 (November 10).
https://idp.uoc.edu
Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
A holistic approach to remote digital work: from the inconveniences suffered by
employees to a comprehensive ‘fair compensation’
IDP No. 36 (October, 2022) I ISSN 1699-8154 Journal promoted by the Law and Political Science Department
14
2022, Matteo Avogaro
of this edition: 2022, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
FLORÈS, P. (2016). “Le forfait en jours après la loi du 8 août 2016”. In : Droit social, no. 11, pp. 898-902.
GENIAUT, B. (2020). “Covid-19 et télétravail”. In: Droit Social, no. 7-8, pp. 607-611.
GINÈS I FABRELLAS, A. (coord.) (2021). Teletrabajo. Estudio jurídico desde la perspectiva de la seguri-
dad y salud laboral. 1st ed. Cizur Menor: Aranzadi-Thomson Reuters.
GONZÁLEZ GÓNZALEZ, C. (2020). “Prueba y retribución de las horas extraordinarias”. In: ID. Registro
de la jornada y problemas en la determinación de la jornada efectiva de trabajo. Cizur Menor: Aran-
zadi-Thomson Reuters [online chapter, ref. BIB 2020\10831].
ICHINO, P. (2021). “Smart working e autonomia negoziale individuale” [online contribution]. In: Lavoce.info.
ILO (2020). Teleworking during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. Geneva: the International Labour Office.
KESSLER, F. (2020). Droit de la protection sociale, 7th ed. Paris: Dalloz.
LECCESE, V. (2020). “Lavoro agile e misurazione della durata dell’orario per finalità di tutela della
salute”. In: Rivista Giuridica del Lavoro e della Previdenza Sociale, no. 3, pp. 428-443.
LODOVICI, M. (ed.) (2021). The impact of teleworking and digital work on workers and society [EMPL
committee report]. Luxembourg: European Parliament.
MAZMANIAN M., ORLIKOWSKI, W.; YATES, J. (2013). “The autonomy paradox: The implications of
mobile email devices for knowledge professionals”. In: Organisation Science, vol. 24, no. 5, pp.
1337-1357. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0806
MELLA MÉNDEZ, L. (2021). “Valoración crítica del Rd-Ley 28/2020, en especial sobre la protección
de la salud en el trabajo a distancia”. In: RODRÍGUEZ-PIÑERO ROJO, M., TODOLÍ SIGNES, A. (dir.).
Trabajo a distancia y teletrabajo: análisis del marco normativo vigente. Cizur Menor: Thomson Reu-
ters-Aranzadi, pp. 173-202.
MINÉ, M. (2019). “Actualité de la mesure du temps de travail”. Revue du Droit du Travail, no. 7-8, pp. 492-494.
Ministère du Travail (2021). La négociation collective en 2020. Paris: Direction Générale du Travail, pp. 365-371.
OECD (2021). OECD Employment Outlook 2021. Paris: OECD Publishing.
PELUSI, L. (2017). “La disciplina di salute e sicurezza applicabile al lavoro agile”. In: Diritto delle Relazi-
oni Industriali, no. 4, pp. 1041-1047.
PÉREZ DEL PRADO, D. (2022). “Teletrabajo y negociación colectiva. In: Ministerio de Trabajo y
Economía Social”. In: Teletrabajo y negociación colectiva. XXXIII Jornada de Estudio sobre Negoci-
ación Colectiva. Madrid: Subdirección General de Informes, Recursos y Publicaciones, pp. 115-149.
RAMOS MARTI, N.; VISSER, J. (2008). “A more ‘autonomous’ European social dialogue: The implemen-
tation of the framework agreement on telework”. In: International Journal of Comparative Labour
Law and Industrial Relations, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 511-548. https://doi.org/10.54648/IJCL2008027.
RAY, J.-E. (2018). “De la question sociale du XXIe siècle au télétravail”. In: Droit Social, no. 1, pp. 52-58.
RAY, J.-E. (2020). “De l’ANI du 26 novembre 2020 sur le télétravail à l’avenir du travail à distance”. In:
Droit Social, no. 3, pp. 236-242.
REHFELDT, U.; VINCENT, C. (2018). “The decentralisation of collective bargaining in France: an esca-
lating process”. In: LEONARDI, S.; PEDERSINI, R. (eds.). Multi-employer bargaining under pressure.
Decentralisation trends in five European countries. Brussels: ETUI aisbl, pp. 151-163.
RICHEVAUX, M. (2021). “Coronavirus et maladies professionnelles”. In: Les Petites Affiches, no. 86, pp. 9-36.
SEPÚLVEDA GÓMEZ, M. (2021). “El Acuerdo Marco Europeo sobre Digitalización. El necesario protago-
nismo de la norma pactada”. In: Temas Laborales, no. 158, pp. 234-241.
https://idp.uoc.edu
Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
A holistic approach to remote digital work: from the inconveniences suffered by
employees to a comprehensive ‘fair compensation’
IDP No. 36 (October, 2022) I ISSN 1699-8154 Journal promoted by the Law and Political Science Department
15
2022, Matteo Avogaro
of this edition: 2022, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
Service-public.fr (2022). “Fin du passe vaccinal et du port du masque en intérieur à partir du 14 mars
2022” [online communication].
SOSTERO, M., MILASI, S.; HURLEY, J. (2020). “Teleworkability and the COVID-19 crisis: a new digital
divide?” In: JRC Working Papers Series, no. 5. Seville: European Commission.
TASCÓN LÓPEZ, R. (2018). “El derecho de desconexión del trabajador (potencialidades en el ordenam-
iento español)”. In: Trabajo y Derecho, no. 41, pp. 45-63.
THIBAULT ARANDA, J. (2021). “Ámbito de aplicación de la nueva Ley del Trabajo a Distancia: definición
y calificación jurídica”. In: DE LOS COBOS ORIHUEL, F.P., THIBAULT ARANDA, J. (coord.). El trabajo
a distancia. Madrid: Wolters Kluwer, pp. 99-122.
TIRABOSCHI, M. (2017). “Il lavoro agile tra legge e contrattazione collettiva: la tortuosa via italiana ver-
so la modernizzazione del diritto del lavoro”. In: Diritto della Relazioni Industriali, no. 4, pp. 921-977.
TRUJILLO PONS, F. (2020). La “desconexión digital” en el ámbito laboral. 1st ed. Valencia: Tirant lo Blanch.
VICENTE GÓMEZ, M. (2020). “Trabajo y los agentes sociales llegan a un preacuerdo para regular el
teletrabajo” [newspaper article, online]. El País.
Collective agreements4
Framework Agreement on Telework, 16 July 2002 (EFAT) [online]. Available at: https://www.etuc.org/
en/framework-agreement-telework
European Social Partners Framework Agreement on Digitalisation, 13 June 2020 (FAD) [online]. Avail-
able at: https://www.etuc.org/en/pressrelease/eu-social-partners-reach-agreement-digitalisation
Accord national interprofessionnel relatif au télétravail, 19 July 2005 (France) [online]. Available at:
https://www.anact.fr/file/3903/download%3Ftoken%3DJhHuOV5l+&cd=3&hl=pt-
Accord national interprofessionnel pour une mise en œuvre réussie du télétravail, 26 November 2020
(France) [online]. Available at: https://www.medef.com/fr/actualites/accord-national-interprofes-
sionnel-du-26-novembre-2020-pour-une-mise-en-oeuvre-reussie-du-teletravail-un-outil-utile-
pour-les-entreprises-1
Accordo Interconfederale, June 2004 (Italy) [online]. Available at: http://bancadati.anpalservizi.it/bdds/
ViewScheda.action?product=DOCUMENTA&uid=b4aeda0b-b358-4be7-a5a2-c50d248c5ab4&ti-
tle=scheda#
Protocollo nazionale sul lavoro in modalità agile, 7 December 2021 (Italy, ‘Trilateral agreement’) [on-
line]. Available at: https://www.lavoro.gov.it/notizie/Pagine/Protocollo-Nazionale-sul-Lavoro-Ag-
ile-nel-settore-privato.aspx
FCA agreement, 12 March 2018 (Italy) [online]. Available at: http://www.fim-cisl.it/wp-content/up-
loads/2018/03/20180312-FCA-verbale-di-accordo-firmato-smart-working.pdf
ING bank agreement, 4 August 2020 (Italy) [online]. Available at: https://www.cnel.it/Portals/0/
CNEL/Archivio_Contratti/Accordi%20Covid/sezione%202/90%20-%20ing%20bank.pd-
f?ver=2021-03-15-105452-020
Europcar IB S.A. agreement, 29 May 2019 (Spain) [online]. Boletín Oficial del Estado, 20 August 2019, no. 199.
Telefonica On The Sport Services S.A.U. agreement, 19 December 2013 (extended until 30 October
2022) (Spain) [online]. Boletín Oficial del Estado, 21 February 2014, no. 45.
4. All online articles and documents were accessed on July 28, 2022.
https://idp.uoc.edu
Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
A holistic approach to remote digital work: from the inconveniences suffered by
employees to a comprehensive ‘fair compensation’
IDP No. 36 (October, 2022) I ISSN 1699-8154 Journal promoted by the Law and Political Science Department
16
2022, Matteo Avogaro
of this edition: 2022, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
Recommended citation
AVOGARO, Matteo (2021). “A holistic approach to remote digital work: from the inconveniences suf-
fered by employees to a comprehensive ‘fair compensation’”. IDP. Internet, Law and Politics E-Journal.
No. 36. UOC [Accessed: dd/mm/aa] http://dx.doi.org/10.7238/idp.v0i36.400857
The texts published in this journal, unless otherwise indicated, are subject to a Creative
Commons Attribution No Derivative Works 3.0 Spain licence. They may be copied, distribut-
ed and broadcast provided the the author, the journal and the institution that publishes
them (IDP. Revista de Internet, Derecho y Política; UOC) are cited. Derivative works are not
permitted. The full licence can be consulted on http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nd/3.0/es/deed.es.
About the author
Matteo Avogaro
Institute for Labour Studies (IEL), ESADE Law School, Universitat Ramon Llull
matteo.avogaro@esade.edu
Postdoctoral researcher at Universitat Ramon Llull, ESADE, having obtained a PhD in Labour Law
at the University of Milan (2019), a postgraduate degree in Labour Law (University of Venice, 2015)
and a master’s degree in Law (University of Trento, 2011). He has been a visiting PhD student at the
University of Paris Nanterre and collaborated, in 2019-2020, with the EU Agency Eurofound. His main
research interests deal with gender equality in the labour market, with in-work poverty and the work-
ing poor, and with the impact of digitalization – especially remote work and artificial intelligence – on
the employment relationship. He is currently a member of the research teams of the Horizon2020
project Equal4Europe and of the project LABORAlgorithm, funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science.
In addition, he is the foreign correspondent for the CERCRID research project TraPlaNum of the Uni-
versities of St. Etienne and Lyon II. During his career, he has participated as a speaker at national and
international conferences and won the 2018 Marco Biagi Award from the International Association of
Labour Law Journals.
