EELA Updates

Case report

2010-06-30

France

2010/72: Failure to inform works council means management may not close down plant (FR)

Total was ordered to restart production at its Dunkirk refinery, which had stood idle for nine months, within 15 days of service of the judgment, or face fines of 100,000 per day, because the refinery’s management had failed to follow proper procedures to inform and consult its works council before deciding to close down the refinery.

Cour d’appel de Douai, 2010-06-30

Summary

2010-06-30

2010/72: Failure to inform works council means management may not close down plant (FR)

Total was ordered to restart production at its Dunkirk refinery, which had stood idle for nine months, within 15 days of service of the judgment, or face fines of 100,000 per day, because the refinery’s management had failed to follow proper procedures to inform and consult its works council before deciding to close down the refinery.

Cour d’appel de Douai, 2010-06-30

Case report

2010-06-30

Denmark

2010/79: Employers may discriminate against under-18s (DE)

Provisions in a collective labour agreement that allow the practice of paying employees under 18 years less than older employees and that allow termination of employees’ contracts when they turn 18, do not violate the Danish Employment Equality Directive.

Østre Landsret (Danish Eastern High Court), 2010-06-30

Summary

2010-06-30

2010/79: Employers may discriminate against under-18s (DE)

Provisions in a collective labour agreement that allow the practice of paying employees under 18 years less than older employees and that allow termination of employees’ contracts when they turn 18, do not violate the Danish Employment Equality Directive.

Østre Landsret (Danish Eastern High Court), 2010-06-30

Case report

2010-06-24

Finland

2010/68: A group of companies that reorganise may, for redundancy selection purposes, assess the need to terminate staff at group level (FI)

The employer was entitled to terminate the employment contract of an employee in a situation where the group was reorganised owing to its weak financial position, as the operations of the group of companies constituted a single operational and economic entity.

Supreme Court of Finland, 2010-06-24

Summary

2010-06-24

2010/68: A group of companies that reorganise may, for redundancy selection purposes, assess the need to terminate staff at group level (FI)

The employer was entitled to terminate the employment contract of an employee in a situation where the group was reorganised owing to its weak financial position, as the operations of the group of companies constituted a single operational and economic entity.

Supreme Court of Finland, 2010-06-24

Case report

2010-06-21

United Kingdom

2010/58: Discrimination on grounds of perceived disability not outlawed (UK)

Under current UK law, a claim for disability discrimination can only be brought by a person who has a disability or is associated with a disabled person, not a person who is wrongly perceived as having a disability. This will change when the relevant provisions of the Equality Act 2010 come into force.

Employment Appeal Tribunal, 2010-06-21

Summary

2010-06-21

2010/58: Discrimination on grounds of perceived disability not outlawed (UK)

Under current UK law, a claim for disability discrimination can only be brought by a person who has a disability or is associated with a disabled person, not a person who is wrongly perceived as having a disability. This will change when the relevant provisions of the Equality Act 2010 come into force.

Employment Appeal Tribunal, 2010-06-21

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