ECtHR 5 July 2022, app. no. 815/18 (Association of Civil Servants and Union for Collective Bargaining v. Germany), Unions, Collective Agreements

Association of Civil Servants and Union for Collective Bargaining – v – Germany

ECtHR 5 July 2022, app. no. 815/18 (Association of Civil Servants and Union for Collective Bargaining v. Germany), Unions, Collective Agreements

Association of Civil Servants and Union for Collective Bargaining – v – Germany

2022/2 Unions have no veto over employer negotiations with staff (UK)

The Supreme Court has confirmed that recognised trade unions do not have a veto over employers making direct offers to their members to change terms and conditions of employment. Employers must, however, follow and exhaust the collective bargaining processes with their recognised unions before they may make direct offers with a view to resolving an impasse that has arisen.

2022/2 Unions have no veto over employer negotiations with staff (UK)

The Supreme Court has confirmed that recognised trade unions do not have a veto over employers making direct offers to their members to change terms and conditions of employment. Employers must, however, follow and exhaust the collective bargaining processes with their recognised unions before they may make direct offers with a view to resolving an impasse that has arisen.

ECJ 2 September 2021, Case C-928/19 P (EPSU), Collective Agreements, Miscellaneous

European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU) - v - European Commission

ECJ 2 September 2021, Case C-928/19 P (EPSU), Collective Agreements, Miscellaneous

European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU) - v - European Commission

ECtHR 10 June 2021, application no. 45487/17 (Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions (LO) and Norwegian Transport Workers’ Union (NTF) v. Norway), Collective Agreements, Unions, Free Movement, Other Fundamental Rights

Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions (LO) and Norwegian Transport Workers’ Union (NTF) – v – Norway

ECtHR 10 June 2021, application no. 45487/17 (Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions (LO) and Norwegian Transport Workers’ Union (NTF) v. Norway), Collective Agreements, Unions, Free Movement, Other Fundamental Rights

Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions (LO) and Norwegian Transport Workers’ Union (NTF) – v – Norway

2021/3 Application of a collective agreement and discrimination based on membership (non-membership) of a trade union (LT)

On 16 December 2020, the Supreme Court of Lithuania (Cassation Court) delivered a ruling in a case where an employee claimed that the employer, JSC ‘Lithuanian Railways’, did not apply the regulations of the company’s employer-level collective agreement and did not pay a special bonus – an anniversary benefit (i.e. a benefit paid to employees on reaching a certain age) – because the employee was not a member of the trade union which had signed the collective agreement. According to the employee, she was discriminated against because of her membership of another trade union, i.e membership of the ‘wrong’ trade union. The Supreme Court held that combatting discrimination under certain grounds falls within the competence and scope of EU law, but that discrimination on the grounds of trade union membership is not distinguished as a form of discrimination. Also, the Court ruled that in this case (contrary to what the employee claimed in her cassation appeal) Article 157 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) is not applicable because it regulates the prohibition of discrimination on other (sex) grounds. Moreover, the Court found that there was no legal basis for relying on the relevant case law of the ECJ which provides clarification on other forms of discrimination, but not on discrimination based on trade union membership.

2021/3 Application of a collective agreement and discrimination based on membership (non-membership) of a trade union (LT)

On 16 December 2020, the Supreme Court of Lithuania (Cassation Court) delivered a ruling in a case where an employee claimed that the employer, JSC ‘Lithuanian Railways’, did not apply the regulations of the company’s employer-level collective agreement and did not pay a special bonus – an anniversary benefit (i.e. a benefit paid to employees on reaching a certain age) – because the employee was not a member of the trade union which had signed the collective agreement. According to the employee, she was discriminated against because of her membership of another trade union, i.e membership of the ‘wrong’ trade union. The Supreme Court held that combatting discrimination under certain grounds falls within the competence and scope of EU law, but that discrimination on the grounds of trade union membership is not distinguished as a form of discrimination. Also, the Court ruled that in this case (contrary to what the employee claimed in her cassation appeal) Article 157 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) is not applicable because it regulates the prohibition of discrimination on other (sex) grounds. Moreover, the Court found that there was no legal basis for relying on the relevant case law of the ECJ which provides clarification on other forms of discrimination, but not on discrimination based on trade union membership.