In a summary proceeding, the Court of Rotterdam has held that it is not clear whether the Non-Seafarers Work Clause, prohibiting lashing work on board of container ships being carried out by the crew, does indeed contribute to better employment and/or working conditions of seafarers. As a result of which the Clause – at this time – cannot be held to be outside the scope of competition law and the claim for compliance with the provision has been rejected. In the media, unions have stated that they will continue to enforce compliance with the Non-Seafarers Work Clause. It remains to be seen whether a court in main proceedings will reach a similar verdict. |
Case Reports |
2020/45 Non-Seafarers Work Clause: contributing to better employment conditions or not? (NL) |
Journal | European Employment Law Cases, Issue 4 2020 |
Keywords | Unions, Miscellaneous |
Authors | Erick Hagendoorn |
AbstractAuthor's information |
Case Reports |
2020/48 Norwegian parental benefits provisions disadvantaging men found outside the scope of Equal Treatment Directive (NO) |
Journal | European Employment Law Cases, Issue 4 2020 |
Keywords | Parental Leave, Gender Discrimination |
Authors | Jonas Thorsdalen Wik and Dag Sørlie Lund |
AbstractAuthor's information |
On 13 December 2019 the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) Court held that a national provision that renders a father’s entitlement to parental benefits during a shared period of leave dependent on the mother’s situation, but not vice versa, fell outside the scope of Directive 2006/54/EC (the Equal Treatment Directive) since it did not concern “employment and working conditions” within the meaning of Article 14(1)(c) of that Directive. The action brought by the EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) was thus dismissed. The Court consequently did not consider whether the Norwegian rules amounted to unlawful discrimination under the Directive. Furthermore, no assessment was made as to the potential breach with the general principle of equality of gender under EEA law, as this had not been pleaded by ESA. |
Case Reports |
2020/33 The concept of ‘maternity’ does not include, and therefore does not protect, mothers regarding discrimination related to ‘childcare’ (BE) |
Journal | European Employment Law Cases, Issue 3 2020 |
Keywords | Gender Discrimination, Other Forms of Discrimination |
Authors | Gautier Busschaert |
AbstractAuthor's information |
The Brussels Labour Court of Appeal, in a judgment of 10 September 2019, has ruled that the notion of ‘maternity’ contained in the Belgian Gender Act does not go as far as protecting mothers against discrimination with regards to childcare, since this would confirm a patriarchal role pattern. However, a recent legislative change introducing ‘paternity’ as a protected ground might cast doubt on the relevance of this ruling for the future. |
Case Reports |
2020/5 An undefined number of consecutive fixed-term contracts for the duration of 12 years does not necessarily violate EU law (AT) |
Journal | European Employment Law Cases, Issue 1 2020 |
Keywords | Fixed-term work, Part-time work, Gender discrimination |
Authors | Ines Kager |
AbstractAuthor's information |
On 3 October 2019, in case C-274/18 (Schuch-Ghannadan), the ECJ held that a national regulation, which provides for different maximum total durations of successive fixed-term employment contracts for part-time workers on the one hand and full-time workers on the other, could result in a discrimination of part-time workers and an indirect discrimination of women. |