2016/44 Is there a genuine remedy for the employer’s failure to consult? (HU)

During negotiations for a collective bargaining agreement, the employer stopped consulting the employee representatives because a sectorial collective bargaining agreement had entered into force that also applied to the employer. After this, the trade union requested an appointment with the employer on a specific date and proposed an agenda for the meeting, including consultation on the impact of the sectorial collective bargaining agreement on the employees. The employer refused to meet on the requested date. The trade union challenged this via the Labour Court. The first and second instance courts turned down the trade union’s claim and confirmed the employer had acted lawfully. The Curia (the Supreme Court) established that the employer had breached its obligation to consult – an obligation deriving from the Labour Code which implemented Directive 2002/14 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees – but at the same time it refused to order the employer to proceed with the consultations, leaving the trade union without an effective remedy.

Case C-97/16. Working time

Must the definition of ‘mobile worker’ given in Article 3(d) of Directive 2002/15 on working time...

2016/49 French state held liable for failing to transpose Article 7§1 of the Working Time Directive (FR)

The French state was held liable by the Administrative Court of Clermont-Ferrand for failing to transpose Article 7§1 of EU Directive 2003/88/EC on working time.

2016/36 Lower pay for employees under the age of 25 not discriminatory (DK)

The Danish Supreme Court has ruled that a provision in a collective agreement allowing employers to pay reduced allowances for working in the evenings, on nights and at weekends to employees under the age of 25 in full-time education and working no more than 15 hours a week was not in conflict with the Danish Anti-Discrimination Act since it was justified by a legitimate aim.

Case C-126/16. Transfer of undertakings

Is Netherlands insolvency procedure, in the event of the transfer of the insolvent undertaking in...

Case C-174/16. Parental leave and sex discrimination

Are the provisions of Council Directive 2010/18 implementing the revised Framework Agreement on...

ECJ 16 June 2016, case C-159/15 (Lesar), Age discrimination

National law that excludes civil servants’ pre-18 service for pension purposes is not age discriminatory.

2016/39 Not selecting a candidate for a job on account of her veil was directly discriminatory on grounds of religion (IT)

A staffing agency rejected an application for an advertised job because the applicant refused to remove her hijab. The court of first instance saw no discrimination, the Court of Appeal did. The plaintiff was awarded €500 but had to bear her own legal expenses.

2016/43 Inappropriate use of Facebook by employee leads to unfair dismissal (IR)

A recent decision by the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) found that the dismissal of an employee for putting “derogatory” comments on Facebook about a colleague was unfair.

ECtHR 15 September 2016, application 44818/11. (Gurkha), Discrimination

The ECtHR found no violation of Article 14 of the Convention read together with Article 1 of Protocol 1, in the pension schemes applying to the Brigade of Gurkhas. Although Gurkha soldiers could be regarded as having been treated less favourably than other soldiers in the British army, any difference in treatment had been objectively and reasonably justified.