Case C-429/16. Collecive redundancy

Is Article 2 of Directive 98/59 to be interpreted as meaning that an employer employing at least...

2016/33 Supreme Court clarifies rules on redundancy selection methods (NO)

The basic rule in Norwegian law is that an employer planning to reduce headcount must apply the rules for selecting those to be dismissed (based on seniority, qualifications, personal circumstances, etc.) to the entire workforce within the relevant legal entity. However, there are circumstances under which the employer may limit the pool of employees within which to apply those rules. In this case, the employer was justified in limiting that pool to one employee, thereby avoiding the need to make a selection.

2016/33 Supreme Court clarifies rules on redundancy selection methods (NO)

The basic rule in Norwegian law is that an employer planning to reduce headcount must apply the rules for selecting those to be dismissed (based on seniority, qualifications, personal circumstances, etc.) to the entire workforce within the relevant legal entity. However, there are circumstances under which the employer may limit the pool of employees within which to apply those rules. In this case, the employer was justified in limiting that pool to one employee, thereby avoiding the need to make a selection.

2016/19 Reference in a termination letter to ‘retirement’ can cost the employer dearly (GE)

In businesses employing fewer than ten employees, the rules on unfair dismissal do not apply. However, those on discrimination do. This fact made it possible for the 63 year-old employee in this case to claim damages, effectively for unfair dismissal. She had been dismissed following a reduction in the available work. She was selected for redundancy because she was less qualified than her colleagues. However, her termination letter mentioned that she had become “eligible for retirement”. This remark created a presumption of age discrimination, which the employer was not able to rebut.

2016/19 Reference in a termination letter to ‘retirement’ can cost the employer dearly (GE)

In businesses employing fewer than ten employees, the rules on unfair dismissal do not apply. However, those on discrimination do. This fact made it possible for the 63 year-old employee in this case to claim damages, effectively for unfair dismissal. She had been dismissed following a reduction in the available work. She was selected for redundancy because she was less qualified than her colleagues. However, her termination letter mentioned that she had become “eligible for retirement”. This remark created a presumption of age discrimination, which the employer was not able to rebut.

2016/22 Failing to offer voluntary redundancy because it triggered a right to early retirement is directly discriminatory (UK)

Following a restructure of his employer, an over 50 year old employee was deprived of the opportunity to apply for voluntary redundancy, compared to his under 50 year old colleagues, because it would have triggered early retirement resulting in a higher redundancy package. The Employment Tribunal (‘ET’) held that the use of under 50 year old comparators was not appropriate because the comparators were not entitled to early retirement and were therefore in materially different circumstances compared to the claimant. On appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (‘EAT’), the EAT held that the fact that the comparators were not entitled to early retirement was not a “relevant circumstance” making the comparators invalid. A prima facie case of direct age discrimination was therefore made out. The EAT remitted the case back to the original ET to determine if the employer’s direct discrimination could be justified.

2016/22 Failing to offer voluntary redundancy because it triggered a right to early retirement is directly discriminatory (UK)

Following a restructure of his employer, an over 50 year old employee was deprived of the opportunity to apply for voluntary redundancy, compared to his under 50 year old colleagues, because it would have triggered early retirement resulting in a higher redundancy package. The Employment Tribunal (‘ET’) held that the use of under 50 year old comparators was not appropriate because the comparators were not entitled to early retirement and were therefore in materially different circumstances compared to the claimant. On appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (‘EAT’), the EAT held that the fact that the comparators were not entitled to early retirement was not a “relevant circumstance” making the comparators invalid. A prima facie case of direct age discrimination was therefore made out. The EAT remitted the case back to the original ET to determine if the employer’s direct discrimination could be justified.

ECJ 11 November 2015, case C-422/14 (Christian Pujante Rivera - v - Gestora Clubs Dir, SL. and Fondo de Garantía Salarial), Collective redundancies

The defendants in the main proceeding was a company called Gestora.  As at 3 September 2013,...

<strong>ECJ 11 November 2015, case C-422/14&nbsp;(Christian Pujante Rivera - v - Gestora Clubs Dir, SL. and Fondo de Garant&iacute;a Salarial), Collective redundancies</strong>

The defendants in the main proceeding was a company called Gestora.  As at 3 September 2013,...

ECJ 9 July 2015, Case C-229/14 (Ender Balkaya - v - Kiesel Abbruchund Recycling Technik GmbH), Collective redundancies

The limited liability company (GmbH) Kiesel Abbruch closed down its operations and dismissed all...