Top of page ↑
Log out
Reset filters
    • Verdicts from/at until
364 search results

Case report

2010-09-28

France

2011/28 No derogation is possible in relation to daily 11 hour rest period (FR)

The daily rest period of 11 consecutive hours set by Directive 93/104, as amended by Directive 2000/34/EC1 is interpreted as prohibiting all derogations.

Cour de cassation (French Supreme Court), 2010-09-28

Summary

2010-09-28

2011/28 No derogation is possible in relation to daily 11 hour rest period (FR)

The daily rest period of 11 consecutive hours set by Directive 93/104, as amended by Directive 2000/34/EC1 is interpreted as prohibiting all derogations.

Cour de cassation (French Supreme Court), 2010-09-28

Case report

2010-05-28

Ireland

2010/78: Rules prohibiting direct sex discrimination may be applied to a claim based on indirect sex discrimination (failure to provide part-time work) (IR)

An employee alleged that her employer had indirectly discriminated against her on the grounds of gender and family status when it failed to provide her with part-time work in 2005. At the hearing, the Equality Officer decided to address the issue of direct discrimination, even though the employee had not made any allegations in this regard. The Equality Officer concluded that the employee had established a prima facie case of direct discrimination on the grounds of gender only and awarded her € 45,000 in compensation.

The Equality Tribunal, 2010-05-28

Summary

2010-05-28

2010/78: Rules prohibiting direct sex discrimination may be applied to a claim based on indirect sex discrimination (failure to provide part-time work) (IR)

An employee alleged that her employer had indirectly discriminated against her on the grounds of gender and family status when it failed to provide her with part-time work in 2005. At the hearing, the Equality Officer decided to address the issue of direct discrimination, even though the employee had not made any allegations in this regard. The Equality Officer concluded that the employee had established a prima facie case of direct discrimination on the grounds of gender only and awarded her € 45,000 in compensation.

The Equality Tribunal, 2010-05-28

Case report

2010-04-26

Portugal

2010/86: The need to protect one employee’s interests can justify unilaterally changing a colleague’s working times (PT)

An employer may unilaterally change an employee’s working times (from fixed hours to a shift schedule) if that is necessary to avoid harming another employee’s interests.

Tribunal da Relação do Porto (Court of Appeal, Porto) , 2010-04-26

Summary

2010-04-26

2010/86: The need to protect one employee’s interests can justify unilaterally changing a colleague’s working times (PT)

An employer may unilaterally change an employee’s working times (from fixed hours to a shift schedule) if that is necessary to avoid harming another employee’s interests.

Tribunal da Relação do Porto (Court of Appeal, Porto) , 2010-04-26

Case report

2010-02-17

France

2010/71: Provision limiting Member States’ right to derogate from Working Time Directive in respect of public transport has direct (vertical) effect (FR)

Article 17 of the Working Time Directive allows Member States to exclude certain activities, such as passenger transport, from the obligation to grant employees a rest break after six hours of work. However, Member States that do this must afford the employees concerned equivalent periods of compensatory rest or, if that is not possible, with appropriate protection. An exempted public body, in this case the Paris metro, that fails to afford its employees such equivalent compensation or appropriate protection cannot rely on its exempted status and must therefore apply the normal national rules.

Cour de cassation (French Supreme Court), 2010-02-17

Summary

2010-02-17

2010/71: Provision limiting Member States’ right to derogate from Working Time Directive in respect of public transport has direct (vertical) effect (FR)

Article 17 of the Working Time Directive allows Member States to exclude certain activities, such as passenger transport, from the obligation to grant employees a rest break after six hours of work. However, Member States that do this must afford the employees concerned equivalent periods of compensatory rest or, if that is not possible, with appropriate protection. An exempted public body, in this case the Paris metro, that fails to afford its employees such equivalent compensation or appropriate protection cannot rely on its exempted status and must therefore apply the normal national rules.

Cour de cassation (French Supreme Court), 2010-02-17

Case report

2010-01-01

Czech Republic

2010/85: The fact that an activity is continuous (24/24) does not necessarily mean that a worker who oversees the activity on his own cannot take (unpaid) rest breaks (CZ)

A worker who does not take rest breaks because he mistakenly believes his job does not permit his work to be interrupted cannot claim compensation for the time during which he could have rested.

Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic

Summary

2010-01-01

2010/85: The fact that an activity is continuous (24/24) does not necessarily mean that a worker who oversees the activity on his own cannot take (unpaid) rest breaks (CZ)

A worker who does not take rest breaks because he mistakenly believes his job does not permit his work to be interrupted cannot claim compensation for the time during which he could have rested.

Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic