2017/30 Discrimination of workers’ representatives – burden of proof (LI)

The Lithuanian Supreme Court has found discrimination against an employee based on his trade union activities and ruled that there was no need for the burden of proof to shift to the employer.

2017/30 Discrimination of workers’ representatives – burden of proof (LI)

The Lithuanian Supreme Court has found discrimination against an employee based on his trade union activities and ruled that there was no need for the burden of proof to shift to the employer.

Case C-258/17. Discrimination and pension

Does Article 2 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general...

Case C-258/17. Discrimination and pension

Does Article 2 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general...

2015/27 Constitional court validates unified status for white collar and blue collar workers (BE)

Under Belgian law, an employer wishing to dismiss an employee has the choice of either observing a notice period (the length of which depends on years of service) or paying the employee an ‘indemnity in lieu’, that is to say a sum of money equal to the salary (including fringe benefits) that the employee would have earned during the notice period. In December 2013, a law was passed that altered the rules on notice periods. Some of the provisions of the 2013 law especially affect employees who are entitled to a notice period (or an indemnity in lieu) of 30 weeks or more. These ‘30+ week employees’ must now be offered employability assistance by an external outplacement agency. Employees who are dismissed with notice receive these outplacement services during their notice period. The cost of the outplacement agency is borne by the employer. Employees who are not given notice but are paid an indemnity in lieu, on the other hand, bear the cost of the outplacement services themselves, in that their indemnity is reduced by a sum equal to four weeks of salary. A union representing executive employees (‘cadres / kaderpersoneel’) and several individual workers challenged the constitutionality of the relevant provisions of the 2013 law without success.

<strong>2015/27 Constitional court validates unified status for white collar and blue collar workers (BE)</strong>

Under Belgian law, an employer wishing to dismiss an employee has the choice of either observing a notice period (the length of which depends on years of service) or paying the employee an ‘indemnity in lieu’, that is to say a sum of money equal to the salary (including fringe benefits) that the employee would have earned during the notice period. In December 2013, a law was passed that altered the rules on notice periods. Some of the provisions of the 2013 law especially affect employees who are entitled to a notice period (or an indemnity in lieu) of 30 weeks or more. These ‘30+ week employees’ must now be offered employability assistance by an external outplacement agency. Employees who are dismissed with notice receive these outplacement services during their notice period. The cost of the outplacement agency is borne by the employer. Employees who are not given notice but are paid an indemnity in lieu, on the other hand, bear the cost of the outplacement services themselves, in that their indemnity is reduced by a sum equal to four weeks of salary. A union representing executive employees (‘cadres / kaderpersoneel’) and several individual workers challenged the constitutionality of the relevant provisions of the 2013 law without success.

2015/22 Job applicant may lie when asked about spouse’s gender and political activity (FI)

The employer had no right to ask the job applicant about her spouse’s political activity, nor to require the applicant to tell the truth about her spouse’s gender. Consequently, the employer discriminated against the employee when it terminated the employment for serious breach of trust having discovered that the employee had lied about her spouse’s political activity and had not corrected the assumption that the spouse was of the same gender.

<strong>2015/22 Job applicant may lie when asked about spouse&rsquo;s gender and political activity (FI)</strong>

The employer had no right to ask the job applicant about her spouse’s political activity, nor to require the applicant to tell the truth about her spouse’s gender. Consequently, the employer discriminated against the employee when it terminated the employment for serious breach of trust having discovered that the employee had lied about her spouse’s political activity and had not corrected the assumption that the spouse was of the same gender.

2014/43 Supreme Court rules on equal pay and on redundancy selection criteria (PL)

The Polish Supreme Court recently clarified the criteria to be applied when selecting staff for redundancy, as well as the burden of proof in cases of ‘justified discrimination’ and unequal pay.

2014/43 Supreme Court rules on equal pay and on redundancy selection criteria (PL)

The Polish Supreme Court recently clarified the criteria to be applied when selecting staff for redundancy, as well as the burden of proof in cases of ‘justified discrimination’ and unequal pay.