Jeremias read law at Corpus Christi College, Oxford and the University of Paris II (MA) as well as Harvard Law School (LL.M.) before returning to complete an AHRC-funded DPhil at Magdalen College, Oxford (2010-12). Prior to his election to a Fellowship at Magdalen, he was a Supernumerary Fellow of St John’s College, Oxford (2011-14), and a Stipendiary Lecturer at Jesus College (2010-11). Jeremias has also held visiting research or lecturing positions at Columbia Law School, New York; the Max Planck Institute, Hamburg; and University College, London. Since 2014, he has also been a Research Fellow at the Faculty's Institute for European and Comparative Law (IECL).
Jeremias teaches Constitutional Law and EU Law at Magdalen, as well as Labour Law and Corporate Law for the Faculty. In 2013, he was awarded the University’s Teaching Excellence Award in the Social Sciences Division.
Jeremias’ principal research interests are in the fields of Employment Law, Corporate Law, and European Union Law (with a particular focus on Civil Aviation). In Employment Law, he focuses on the regulation of fragmenting labour markets—from outsourcing to Private Equity—and comparative research into European employment law in times of crisis (funded by the European Commission through INLACRIS), as well as consulting on projects for the International Labour Organisation (ILO).
His work in European law includes co-editing the EU Law in the Member States Series (Hart | Bloomsbury Publishing; with Michal Bobek), exploring the reception and implementation of EU-level norms across different Member States. In Civil Aviation, Jeremias is particularly interested in the interaction of the Montreal Convention of 1999 and EU Regulation 261/2004 in shaping the future of passenger rights. He serves on the committee of the Royal Aeronautical Society’s Air Law Group.
In 2015, Jeremias received a British Academy Rising Star Engagement Award to further his work in European Employment Law.
- Also published in H Nakakubo and T Araki (eds), Reconsidering the Notion of “Employer” in the Era of Fissured Workplace: Should Labour Law Responsibilities Exceed the Boundary of the Legal Entity? (JILPT Report No. 15/2016) 73-94.DOI: 10.1111/1468-2230.12264
Discussed in R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor, UKSC 2015/233: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0233.html
Coverage in The Economist: http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21719825-charging-employees-bring-employment-tribunalseven-if-they-winerodes-their-legal
Since July 2013, recourse to Employment Tribunals in the United Kingdom has attracted fees of up to £1,200 for single claimants. The impact of this reform has been dramatic: within a year, claims dropped by nearly 80 per cent. This paper suggests that this fee regime is in clear violation of domestic and international norms, including Article 6(1) ECHR and the EU principle of effective judicial protection. Drawing on rational choice theory and empirical evidence, we argue that the resulting payoff structures, negative for the majority of successful claimants, strike at the very essence of these rights. The measures are, furthermore, disproportionate in light of the Government’s stated policy aims: fees have failed to transfer cost away from taxpayers, have failed to encourage early dispute resolution, and have failed to deter vexatious litigants. The only vexatious claims, we find, appear to be those which motivated the reforms in the first place.ISBN: 0026-7961Discusses worker status in a series of recent cases (Secretary of State for Justice v Windle  EWCA Civ 459;  I.C.R. 721 and Pimlico Plumbers Ltd v Smith  EWCA Civ 51;  I.R.L.R. 323 at the appellate level, as well as Aslam v Uber  I.R.L.R. 4, and Dewhurst v Citysprint UK Ltd (2202512/2016) unreported 5 January 2017 ET).Special volume to present results of my British Academy 'Future Directions in EU Labour Law' projectDOI: 10.3241/83255One of the key assumptions underpinning the rise of ‘crowdsourced work’ – from transport apps including Uber to online platforms such as Amazon’s Mechanical Turk – is the assertion put forward by most platforms that crowdworkers are self-employed, independent contractors. As a result, individuals might find themselves without recourse to worker-protective norms, from minimum wage and working time law to health and safety regulations and unfair dismissal protection. But is this account accurate? In this paper, we hope to challenge prevailing assumptions, arguing that in certain scenarios crowdworkers can, and should, be classified as workers within the scope of domestic employment law. The approach proposed, however, is an initially counterintuitive one: we advocate the adoption of a functional concept of the employer as a regulatory solution to crowdwork employment, with platforms, crowdworkers, and service users each shouldering their appropriate share of employer responsibilities.Reviewed: D Cabrelli (2016) 79 MLR 364; B Jones (2016) 132 LQR 167; J Fudge (2016) 45 ILJ 270; M Risak (2016) 3 Zeitschrif für Arbeits- und Sozialrecht 199; DM Cairós Barreto (2015) 10 Revista Trabajo y Derecho 134; L Ratti (2016) 148 Giornale di Diritto del Lavoro e di Relazioni Industriali 581; C Fenwick (2016) 155 International Labour Review 164; E McGaughey (2017) 37 OJLS 482.
Reprinted with corrections (2015); Paperback (2016)
Employment law struggles to adapt to complex modern work arrangements, from agency work and service companies to corporate groups and Private Equity investors. This book argues that the cause of this failure can be found in our concept of the employer, which has become riddled with internal contradictions: English law searches for the unitary counterparty to a bilateral contract of employment by reference to a series of multi-functional tests. As a result of this tension, full employment law coverage is restricted to the narrow scenario where a single legal entity exercises all employer functions⎯a paradigm far from the fragmented reality of modern labour markets.
These problems can only be addressed by a careful reconceptualization leading to the development of a functional concept of the employer. The book draws on existing models in English and European law to develop a definition of the employer as the entity, or combination of entities, exercising functions regulated in a particular domain of employment law. Each strand of the received concept of the employer is examined in turn to demonstrate how this more openly multifunctional approach can successfully overcome the rigidities of the current notion without abandoning a coherent underlying framework. The book fills a crucial gap in employment law and corporate law by exposing the defects in our current understanding of the employer and by developing a new functional concept appropriate for both traditional and emerging work arrangements.ISBN: 978-0-19-873553-3DOI: 10.1017/cel.2015.9In this article, I explore the substance and operation of Article 16 of the European Unions Charter of Fundamental Rights, which recognises the freedom to conduct a business, in order to determine the extent to which the constitutionalisation of commer- cial interests as fundamental rights could pose a threat to the Unions worker-protective acquis. Having surveyed three important Directives which regulate employees rights in transfers of undertakings, collective redundancies, and the organisation of working time, I argue that future challenges based on Article 16 CFR are unlikely to succeed: even in situations where the Directives limit employers economic freedoms, such interfer- ence is justified and proportionate.Reprint of J Prassl (2013) 42 ILJ 307ISBN: 9781849466783Reviewed: B Mak (2015) 44 ILJ 289; R Dukes (2015) CLL&PJ 223; A Morton (2016) 54 BJIR 451;
To what extent is labour law an autonomous field of study? This book is based upon the papers written by a group of leading international scholars on this theme, delivered at a conference to mark Professor Mark Freedland's retirement from his teaching fellowship in Oxford. The chapters explore the boundaries and connections between labour law and other legal disciplines such as company law, competition law, contract law and public law; labour law and legal methodologies such as reflexive governance and comparative law and labour law and other disciplines such as ethics, economics and political philosophy. In so doing, it represents a cross-section of the most sophisticated current work at the cutting edge of labour law theory.ISBN: 9781849466219Zero-Hours Contracts have become one of the most high-profile employment law issues of recent years. In this article, we analyse the legal and empirical evidence of work under Zero-Hours arrangements and suggest that whilst a legal engagement with Zero-Hours Contracts as an unresolved labour market problem is long overdue, the current discourse surrounding these work arrangements is fundamentally flawed: there is no such thing as the Zero-Hours Contract as a singular category; the label serves as no more than a convenient shorthand for masking the explosive growth of precarious work for a highly fragmented workforce. Ongoing attempts at regulating Zero-Hours Contracts thus constitute a significant shift towards the normalisation of all but the most extreme forms of abusive employment arrangements, leaving a rapidly increasing number of workers without recourse to employment protective norms. In concluding, we indicate ways towards a more coherent approach to the de-normalisation and progressive regulation of this large and growing set of casual work arrangements. Also published as ELLN Research Paper 05/2015 at http://www.labourlawnetwork.eu/frontend/file.php?id=769&dl=1 (ISSN 2197-1102)ISBN: ISSN 2197-1102Zero-Hours Contracts have become one of the most high-profile employment law issues of recent years. In this article, we analyse the legal and empirical evidence of work under Zero-Hours arrangements and suggest that whilst a legal engagement with Zero-Hours Contracts as an unresolved labour market problem is long overdue, the current discourse surrounding these work arrangements is fundamentally flawed: there is no such thing as the Zero-Hours Contract as a singular category; the label serves as no more than a convenient shorthand for masking the explosive growth of precarious work for a highly fragmented workforce. Ongoing attempts at regulating Zero-Hours Contracts thus constitute a significant shift towards the normalisation of all but the most extreme forms of abusive employment arrangements, leaving a rapidly increasing number of workers without recourse to employment protective norms. In concluding, we indicate ways towards a more coherent approach to the de-normalisation and progressive regulation of this large and growing set of casual work arrangements.Reviewed: N Reich (2015) 52 CMLRev 1135; A Ludlow (2015) 74 CLJ 361; JS Bergé  RTDEur xv; S Lachnit et al (2015) 5 SEW 266; C Unseld (2016) EULawBlog; R Zahn (2016) 41 ELRev 440; K Ewing (2016) 132 LQR 683.
EU Law in the Member States is a new series dedicated to exploring the impact of landmark CJEU judgments and secondary legislation in legal systems across the European Union. Each book will be written by a team of generalist EU lawyers and experts in the relevant field, bringing together perspectives from a wide range of different Member States in order to compare and analyse the effect of EU law on domestic legal systems and practice.
The first volume focuses on the uneasy relationship between the economic freedoms enshrined in Articles 49 and 56 TFEU and the right of workers to take collective action. This conflict has been at the forefront of EU labour law since the CJEU's much-discussed decisions in C-438/05 Viking and C-341/04 Laval, as well as the Commission's more recent attempts at legislative reforms in the failed Monti II Regulation. Viking, Laval and Beyond explores judicial and legislative responses to these measures in 10 Member States, and finds that the impact on domestic legal systems has been much more varied than traditional accounts of EU law would suggest.
ISBN: 9781849466240ISBN: 9041150072
Employment Law, EU Law, Corporate Law and Finance, Civil Aviation
Options taughtEuropean Union Law, Company Law, Labour Law