Welcome to the European Employment Law Cases (EELC), an online database of judgments of national courts, the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights in the field of employment law. In addition to case law, we also bring you the occasional articles and news items. For more information, please click here.
2011/13: Spanish Supreme Court follows Schultz-Hoff (SP)
The ECJ’s rulings in Schultz-Hoff, Stringer and Pereda have forced the Spanish Supreme Court to change its doctrine in respect of paid annual leave accrued during sick leave.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
2010/75: Not all collective terms cross over to Austrian transferee (AU)
Normally in Austria, following a transfer of undertaking, the transferee’s CLA applies to the transferred employees. However, in the case of the railway privatisation, the transferors’ CLA continues to apply with one exception. This case deals with that exception.
2010/83: Employee barred from using, in discrimination case, information provided in "without prejudice" discussions (UK)
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled that employers can legitimately have “without prejudice” discussions with employees who have alleged unlawful discrimination, with a view to settling the dispute. Such discussions cannot later be used as evidence in court.
2010/84: Does a rejected job applicant have the right to know who got the job and why? (GE)
A German court has referred to the ECJ the following question for a preliminary ruling: must national courts interpret EU law as meaning that an applicant who demonstrates that he or she complies with the requirements of a job advertisement but was not invited for a job interview, has the right to know whether someone else was engaged and, if so, on which criteria that engagement was based? If the answer is yes, does the fact that the employer does not give such information lead to a presumption of discrimination?
2011/4: One-month deadline for exercising Widerspruchsrecht does not start to run if information to staff on impending transfer is misleading (GE)
Failure by an employer to inform the relevant employees correctly about an impending transfer of undertaking can be very costly.