ECJ 15 October 2014, case C-221/13 (Teresa Mascellani – v – Ministero della Giustizia), Working time and leave, Part time work

Ms Mascellani was employed part-time, working three days per week. On 4 November 2010,...

2015/10 Duty to offer woman on maternity leave a suitable alternative vacancy arises when role becomes redundant (UK)

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (‘EAT’) has held that the duty to offer a woman on maternity leave a suitable alternative vacancy under regulation 10 of the Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/3312) (the ‘MPL Regulations’) arises when the employer first becomes aware that her role is redundant, or potentially redundant. The EAT found that if the duty only arose after a redundancy or restructuring process was complete, it would undermine the purpose of the legislation.

The EAT also commented on the relationship between the regulation 10 duty and direct discrimination, as defined in section 18 of the Equality Act 2010 (‘EqA 2010’). Section 18 makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate on grounds of pregnancy or maternity. The EAT found that where the regulation 10 duty is breached by an employer, it did not automatically follow that there would also be a case of direct discrimination under section 18.

2015/10 Duty to offer woman on maternity leave a suitable alternative vacancy arises when role becomes redundant (UK)

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (‘EAT’) has held that the duty to offer a woman on maternity leave a suitable alternative vacancy under regulation 10 of the Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/3312) (the ‘MPL Regulations’) arises when the employer first becomes aware that her role is redundant, or potentially redundant. The EAT found that if the duty only arose after a redundancy or restructuring process was complete, it would undermine the purpose of the legislation.

The EAT also commented on the relationship between the regulation 10 duty and direct discrimination, as defined in section 18 of the Equality Act 2010 (‘EqA 2010’). Section 18 makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate on grounds of pregnancy or maternity. The EAT found that where the regulation 10 duty is breached by an employer, it did not automatically follow that there would also be a case of direct discrimination under section 18.

2014/59 Employee may interrupt (unpaid) parental leave to start new period of (paid) maternity leave (FI)

On 13 February 2014 the ECJ delivered its judgment in the Kultarinta case (see EELC 2014-1 page 34)1. The Finnish Labour Court, which was the referring court in that case, has now ruled on the validity of a provision in several collective agreements in the light of the ECJ’s ruling. The provision in question deals with where an employee wishes to interrupt a period of (unpaid) parental leave in favour of a new period of (paid) maternity leave in connection with another pregnancy.

2014/59 Employee may interrupt (unpaid) parental leave to start new period of (paid) maternity leave (FI)

On 13 February 2014 the ECJ delivered its judgment in the Kultarinta case (see EELC 2014-1 page 34)1. The Finnish Labour Court, which was the referring court in that case, has now ruled on the validity of a provision in several collective agreements in the light of the ECJ’s ruling. The provision in question deals with where an employee wishes to interrupt a period of (unpaid) parental leave in favour of a new period of (paid) maternity leave in connection with another pregnancy.

2014/66 Effects of changes in working time on annual paid leave (AT)

What happens to accumulated paid leave when a worker moves from full-time to part-time? The ECJ ruled on this question twice, in 2010 and again in 2013. The Austrian Supreme Court is taking a position that, according to some, is at odds with those rulings.

2014/66 Effects of changes in working time on annual paid leave (AT)

What happens to accumulated paid leave when a worker moves from full-time to part-time? The ECJ ruled on this question twice, in 2010 and again in 2013. The Austrian Supreme Court is taking a position that, according to some, is at odds with those rulings.

2014/51 Potential breakthrough for employee requests for reduced working hours (CZ)

An employer may decline an employee’s request for reduced working hours or a different distribution of working hours if the employer has serious operational reasons for doing so, even if the employee applies for the reduction in order to take care of a child under 15 or a disabled person or because she is pregnant. The impact on the business activities of the employer at the time of the employee’s request is the crucial consideration in assessing how serious the operational reasons are. If a solution can be found, such as employing someone to cover the employee for the required time, the employer must not decline the employee’s request.

2014/51 Potential breakthrough for employee requests for reduced working hours (CZ)

An employer may decline an employee’s request for reduced working hours or a different distribution of working hours if the employer has serious operational reasons for doing so, even if the employee applies for the reduction in order to take care of a child under 15 or a disabled person or because she is pregnant. The impact on the business activities of the employer at the time of the employee’s request is the crucial consideration in assessing how serious the operational reasons are. If a solution can be found, such as employing someone to cover the employee for the required time, the employer must not decline the employee’s request.

ECJ 12 June 2014, case C-118/13 (Gülay Bollacke - v - K + K Klaas & Kock B.V. & Co KG), Working time and leave, Paid leave

Mr Bollacke died in 2010. On the date of his death he had 140.5 days of annual leave outstanding....