2011/64: Irish system of setting sectoral terms of employment is unconstitutional (IR)

The plaintiffs in this case sought a declaration that certain provisions of the Industrial Relations Acts 1946 and 1990 were invalid having regard to the provisions of the Constitution, and a declaration that an Employment Regulation Order (‘ERO’) made by the Labour Court in May 2008 was an unlawful and disproportionate interference with the plaintiffs’ property rights. The High Court agreed with the plaintiffs and found that the system of setting sectoral wage rates and conditions of employment was unconstitutional.

2014/23 Different termination rules for blue and white collar workers finally ended (BE)

The Belgian Constitutional Court has judged that the differences in treatment between blue and white collar workers regarding notice periods and sick pay are discriminatory. It gave the legislator a deadline of 8 July 2013 to harmonise the statutes relating to blue and white collar workers in relation to notice periods and sick pay. This eventually led to the Act of 26 December 2013 which provides a thorough modernisation of Belgian termination law and has pensioned off the well-known ‘Claeys formula’.

2014/23 Different termination rules for blue and white collar workers finally ended (BE)

The Belgian Constitutional Court has judged that the differences in treatment between blue and white collar workers regarding notice periods and sick pay are discriminatory. It gave the legislator a deadline of 8 July 2013 to harmonise the statutes relating to blue and white collar workers in relation to notice periods and sick pay. This eventually led to the Act of 26 December 2013 which provides a thorough modernisation of Belgian termination law and has pensioned off the well-known ‘Claeys formula’.

ECJ 7 July 2011, case C-310/10 (Ministerul Justitiei si Libertatilor Cetatenesti – v – Stefan Agafitei and others), Other forms of discrimination

The plaintiffs were 31 Romanian judges. They felt discriminated against because prosecutors within two branches of the Justice Department (the branch that prosecutes corruption and the branch that prosecutes terrorism) were given a salary increase, as a result of which they earn more than judges.

The reference for a primary ruling is inadmissible.

ECJ 7 July 2011, case C-310/10 (Ministerul Justitiei si Libertatilor Cetatenesti – v – Stefan Agafitei and others), Other forms of discrimination

The plaintiffs were 31 Romanian judges. They felt discriminated against because prosecutors within two branches of the Justice Department (the branch that prosecutes corruption and the branch that prosecutes terrorism) were given a salary increase, as a result of which they earn more than judges.

The reference for a primary ruling is inadmissible.

2011/53: Does disclosing employee’s sexual orientation constitute discrimination or harassment? (UK)

The Court of Appeal has confirmed that a homosexual employee who had chosen to reveal his sexual orientation to colleagues at a previous workplace could not claim that he was unlawfully discriminated against or harassed simply because he was not able to choose how and when he could reveal his sexual orientation to other colleagues. However, ‘outing’ someone without consent could amount to discrimination and harassment in other circumstances.

2011/53: Does disclosing employee’s sexual orientation constitute discrimination or harassment? (UK)

The Court of Appeal has confirmed that a homosexual employee who had chosen to reveal his sexual orientation to colleagues at a previous workplace could not claim that he was unlawfully discriminated against or harassed simply because he was not able to choose how and when he could reveal his sexual orientation to other colleagues. However, ‘outing’ someone without consent could amount to discrimination and harassment in other circumstances.

ECJ 30 June 2011, case C-388/09 (Joao Filipe da Silva Martins - v - Bank Betriebskrankenkasse- Pflegekasse), Social insurance

Articles 15 and 27 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 […] must be interpreted as not precluding a person in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, who draws retirement pensions from retirement insurance funds both of his Member State of origin and of the Member State in which he spent most of his working life and has moved from that Member State to his Member State of origin, from continuing, by reason of optional continued affiliation to a separate care insurance scheme in the Member State in which he spent most of his working life, to receive a cash benefit corresponding to that affiliation, in particular where cash benefits relating to the specific risk of reliance on care do not exist in the Member State of residence, that being a matter for the referring court to ascertain.

If, contrary to that hypothesis, cash benefits relating to the risk of reliance on care are provided for under the legislation of the Member State of residence, but only at a lower level than that of the benefits relating to that risk from the other pension-paying Member State, Article 27 of Regulation No 1408/71 […] must be interpreted as meaning that such a person is entitled, at the expense of the competent institution of the latter State, to additional benefits equal to the difference between the two amounts.

ECJ 30 June 2011, case C-388/09 (Joao Filipe da Silva Martins - v - Bank Betriebskrankenkasse- Pflegekasse), Social insurance

Articles 15 and 27 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 […] must be interpreted as not precluding a person in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, who draws retirement pensions from retirement insurance funds both of his Member State of origin and of the Member State in which he spent most of his working life and has moved from that Member State to his Member State of origin, from continuing, by reason of optional continued affiliation to a separate care insurance scheme in the Member State in which he spent most of his working life, to receive a cash benefit corresponding to that affiliation, in particular where cash benefits relating to the specific risk of reliance on care do not exist in the Member State of residence, that being a matter for the referring court to ascertain.

If, contrary to that hypothesis, cash benefits relating to the risk of reliance on care are provided for under the legislation of the Member State of residence, but only at a lower level than that of the benefits relating to that risk from the other pension-paying Member State, Article 27 of Regulation No 1408/71 […] must be interpreted as meaning that such a person is entitled, at the expense of the competent institution of the latter State, to additional benefits equal to the difference between the two amounts.

2011/7: Discriminatory termination in probationary period can lead to claims for damages (GE)

Although the German Law on Dismissal Protection does not apply during an employee’s initial probationary period, this does not prevent an employee whose employment has been terminated during this period from bringing a claim for damages as a result of discrimination.