Article
One: Employment and the Law - Recent Developments by
Louise Fernandes
Another busy month for employment law, full of significant decisions and developments. Louise Fernandes of Field Fisher Waterhouse LLP focuses on three key developments below.
Public statement constitutes direct discrimination
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has confirmed that an employer’s public statement indicating that job applications from persons of a certain ethnic origin will be turned down does constitute direct discrimination in breach of the Race Directive, despite the absence of an individual claimant.
In CGKR v Firma Feryn NV, the employer made a statement in the Belgian media to the effect that he would not employ Moroccans.
Following the Advocate General’s opinion, the ECJ confirmed that this public declaration would strongly dissuade certain candidates and constituted direct discrimination. Importantly, the existence of this direct discrimination was not dependant on the identification of a “victim”.
The ECJ outlined options for a remedy in such cases, including a finding of discrimination in conjunction with an adequate level of publicity, an injunction ordering the employer to cease the discriminatory practice and an award of damages. It also confirmed that member states should decide whether to pass legislation to enable anti-racism bodies to bring such claims in the absence of an individual claimant. As the Equality and Human Rights Commission cannot bring proceedings in such circumstances, there is currently no recourse in the UK unless a victim comes forward.
Discrimination by association
The ECJ has also confirmed that the Equal Treatment Framework Directive (Framework Directive) prohibits direct disability discrimination and harassment by association (i.e. discrimination against a non-disabled person on the grounds of their association with a disabled person).
In Coleman v Attridge Law, Ms Coleman worked as a legal secretary for a firm of solicitors and was also a carer for her disabled son. She claimed that she was treated less favourably than employees with non-disabled children. She brought claims under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) and argued that she had suffered discrimination and harassment by association with her son’s disability. The case was referred to the ECJ.
The ECJ confirmed that the Framework Directive seeks to combat all forms of discrimination on certain grounds (including disability) and applies not to a particular category of person but by reference to the particular ground of discrimination. Even though Ms Coleman was not herself disabled, disability is the ground for the less favourable treatment she claims to have suffered. As harassment is deemed to be a form of discrimination, for the same reasons, the ECJ confirmed that the Directive was not limited to the prohibition of harassment of people who are themselves disabled.
This case will return to the Employment Tribunal to consider whether the DDA can be interpreted in such a way as to give effect to the Framework Directive.
Proposed wording for Temporary Workers Directive
Following the agreement reached by EU employment ministers in June,
(this was covered in the last
article) the EU Council has published proposed wording for the Temporary Workers Directive.
The proposed wording gives temporary agency workers, for the duration of their assignment, the right to the same basic working and employment conditions as would apply if they had been recruited directly to occupy the same job. A temporary agency worker is defined as a “worker with a contract of employment or an employment relationship with a temporary agency with a view to being assigned to a user undertaking to work temporarily under its supervision and direction”.
However, as long as an adequate level of protection is provided for temporary agency workers, member states may be able to derogate from this and apply a qualifying period for equal treatment. This potentially covers the 12 week qualifying period recently agreed between the Government, the CBI and the
TUC. (this was covered in the May
article)
“Basic working and employment conditions” is defined as working and employment conditions relating to the duration of working time, overtime, breaks, rest periods, night work, holidays, public holidays and pay. It may be possible for working and employment conditions to be defined differently, provided that the overall level of protection is respected.
Undertakings will be required to provide temporary agency workers with access to amenities
(eg canteen) under the same conditions as other workers, unless the difference in treatment can be justified. Temporary agency workers’ access to training and to childcare facilities must also be improved and they must be told of any vacancies, to give them the same opportunity as others to find permanent employment.
The proposed wording will now be debated by the EU Parliament later this year.
Louise Fernandes is the Professional Support Lawyer in the Employment and Pensions Group at Field Fisher Waterhouse LLP and can be contacted at
louise.fernandes@ffw.com
|