EELA Updates

Case report

2014-02-07

United Kingdom

2014/33 Union attempt to have new tribunal fee regime struck out (UK)

This case concerns the introduction of a new Employment Tribunal fee regime by the UK government. The trade union, Unison, opposed the regime on four grounds. They claimed it breached the principle of effectiveness, the principle of equivalence, the public sector equality duty, and that it was indirectly discriminatory. All of these grounds were dismissed – however, the Court claimed that the arguments would be better assessed if the challenge was brought later when more evidence could be considered. This leaves the way wide open for another challenge down the line.

High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court), 2014-02-07

Summary

2014-02-07

2014/33 Union attempt to have new tribunal fee regime struck out (UK)

This case concerns the introduction of a new Employment Tribunal fee regime by the UK government. The trade union, Unison, opposed the regime on four grounds. They claimed it breached the principle of effectiveness, the principle of equivalence, the public sector equality duty, and that it was indirectly discriminatory. All of these grounds were dismissed – however, the Court claimed that the arguments would be better assessed if the challenge was brought later when more evidence could be considered. This leaves the way wide open for another challenge down the line.

High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court), 2014-02-07

Case report

2013-01-28

Czech Republic

2013/7 Not all employee representatives active within one organisation need necessarily enjoy the same conditions for their activities (CZ)

If employee representatives exist at the employer, the employer must create the conditions for proper performance of their activities and bear the necessary costs to support this. In the case at hand, the trade union laid down requirements for the employer that were disproportionate and contrary to ethical principles, considering the size and activities of the trade union.

Nejvyšší soud (Czech Supreme Court), 2013-01-28

Summary

2013-01-28

2013/7 Not all employee representatives active within one organisation need necessarily enjoy the same conditions for their activities (CZ)

If employee representatives exist at the employer, the employer must create the conditions for proper performance of their activities and bear the necessary costs to support this. In the case at hand, the trade union laid down requirements for the employer that were disproportionate and contrary to ethical principles, considering the size and activities of the trade union.

Nejvyšší soud (Czech Supreme Court), 2013-01-28

Case report

2013-01-21

Romania

2013/30 Before which court(s) must a union bring a collective claim? (RO)

Romanian law allows employees to bring a claim against their employer in the court of the employees’ place of residence or work. Until recently, some courts held that, where a trade union brings a claim on behalf of several members, it must do so in the courts where each of those members resides or works. Other courts allowed a trade union in such a situation to proceed before one single court, namely that of the union’s own registered office. The Supreme Court has ruled in favour of the latter doctrine.

Inalta Curte de Casatie si Justitie (Romanian Supreme Court), 2013-01-21

Summary

2013-01-21

2013/30 Before which court(s) must a union bring a collective claim? (RO)

Romanian law allows employees to bring a claim against their employer in the court of the employees’ place of residence or work. Until recently, some courts held that, where a trade union brings a claim on behalf of several members, it must do so in the courts where each of those members resides or works. Other courts allowed a trade union in such a situation to proceed before one single court, namely that of the union’s own registered office. The Supreme Court has ruled in favour of the latter doctrine.

Inalta Curte de Casatie si Justitie (Romanian Supreme Court), 2013-01-21

Case report

2012-10-24

France

2013/14 New law requiring unions to have sufficient employee support not incompatible with ECHR (FR)

The 20 August 2008 Act requiring that unions obtain elected representatives at the works council in order to appoint a union representative on this council does not constitute a breach of Articles 11 and 14 of the ECHR.

Cour de cassation (French Supreme Court), 2012-10-24

Summary

2012-10-24

2013/14 New law requiring unions to have sufficient employee support not incompatible with ECHR (FR)

The 20 August 2008 Act requiring that unions obtain elected representatives at the works council in order to appoint a union representative on this council does not constitute a breach of Articles 11 and 14 of the ECHR.

Cour de cassation (French Supreme Court), 2012-10-24

Case report

2012-10-19

Italy

2014/18 Discrimination on grounds of personal belief includes trade union membership and activities of employees on behalf of the union (IT)

When the car manufacturer Fiat brought back the production of PANDA cars from Poland to Italy beginning in 2010, it terminated the national collective agreements to which it was a party and entered into a new, company-level collective agreement for one of its factories. There were certain key differences between the new agreement and the old, and the largest trade union, FIOM-Cgil (‘FIOM’), vigorously opposed the changes and refused to sign up to the agreement. Fiat had had approximately 4,000 members laid off (but still counted as part of the workforce), but now brought 1,893 of them back to work on the production of PANDA cars. However, not one was a member of FIOM. FIOM and 19 activist-employees brought an action against Fiat and the court ruled that Fiat had discriminated against FIOM members on grounds of their personal beliefs.

Corte di Appelo di Roma (Rome Court of Appeal), 2012-10-19

Summary

2012-10-19

2014/18 Discrimination on grounds of personal belief includes trade union membership and activities of employees on behalf of the union (IT)

When the car manufacturer Fiat brought back the production of PANDA cars from Poland to Italy beginning in 2010, it terminated the national collective agreements to which it was a party and entered into a new, company-level collective agreement for one of its factories. There were certain key differences between the new agreement and the old, and the largest trade union, FIOM-Cgil (‘FIOM’), vigorously opposed the changes and refused to sign up to the agreement. Fiat had had approximately 4,000 members laid off (but still counted as part of the workforce), but now brought 1,893 of them back to work on the production of PANDA cars. However, not one was a member of FIOM. FIOM and 19 activist-employees brought an action against Fiat and the court ruled that Fiat had discriminated against FIOM members on grounds of their personal beliefs.

Corte di Appelo di Roma (Rome Court of Appeal), 2012-10-19