2019/31 Failing to enhance pay for shared parental leave to the level of maternity pay is not sex discrimination (UK)

In two appeal cases considered jointly, the Court of Appeal (CA) has ruled that it is not direct or indirect sex discrimination, nor a breach of equal pay rights, to provide enhanced pay for maternity leave and statutory pay only for shared parental leave (SPL).

2019/37 The non-competition duties of a dismissed employee exempted from work during the notice period (LU)

The Luxembourg Court of Appeal (Cour d’appel de Luxembourg) confirmed that an employee dismissed with notice and exempted from performing their work during the notice period is no longer bound by the non-competition duties arising from their loyalty obligation and can therefore engage in an employment contract with a direct competitor of their former employer during that exempted notice period. However, the Court of Appeal decided that, even if the former employee is in principle entitled to use the know-how and knowledge they acquired with their former employer, the poaching of clients during the notice period must, due to the facts and circumstances and in the light of the rules applicable in the financial sector, be considered as an unfair competition act and therefore constitutes serious misconduct justifying the termination of the employment contract with immediate effect.

2019/30 The religious ethos and differences of treatment in employment on grounds of belief (EU)

The author discusses the recent ECJ judgments in the cases Egenberger and IR on religious discrimination.

2019/35 Repairing past mistakes in holiday pay: two cases, two different outcomes (NL)

A number of collective labour agreements unjustifiably have excluded allowances from holiday pay. Recently, social partners have had difficulties in repairing these flaws. Two recent cases demonstrate this, both similar claims but with different outcomes. This leaves social partners with the problem of how to proceed.

ECtHR 17 October 2019, applications no. 1874/13 and 8567/13 (López Ribalda), Privacy, Fair Trial, Unfair Dismissal

López Ribalda and others – v – Spain

ECtHR 17 October 2019, applications no. 1874/13 and 8567/13 (López Ribalda), Privacy, Fair Trial, Unfair Dismissal

López Ribalda and others – v – Spain

2019/30 The religious ethos and differences of treatment in employment on grounds of belief (EU)

The author discusses the recent ECJ judgments in the cases Egenberger and IR on religious discrimination.

2019/35 Repairing past mistakes in holiday pay: two cases, two different outcomes (NL)

A number of collective labour agreements unjustifiably have excluded allowances from holiday pay. Recently, social partners have had difficulties in repairing these flaws. Two recent cases demonstrate this, both similar claims but with different outcomes. This leaves social partners with the problem of how to proceed.

2019/26 List of discrimination criteria (PL)

The Polish Supreme Court has held that a criterion of discrimination may also be a relationship of a social or familial nature that exists in the workplace and whose existence or absence on the part of the employee results in different treatment by the employer.

2019/28 An employer may impose a ban on the wearing of any visible sign of political, philosophical or religious beliefs on employees in contact with customers (FR)

Both the French Supreme Court and the Versailles Court of Appeal held that an employer, who must ensure that liberties and fundamental rights of each employee are respected in the working community, may lawfully prohibit the wearing of any visible sign of political, philosophical or religious beliefs in the workplace, provided that the rule contained in the company rules and regulations applies without distinction to employees in direct contact with the customers of the company only. But in the absence of such rules, sanctioning an employee who refuses to remove her Islamic veil based on the wish of a customer, which does not qualify as a genuine and determining occupational requirement, amounts to an unlawful direct discrimination and should consequently be held null and void.