1. HOMOPHOBIC STATEMENTS amount to DISCRIMINATION provided that there is a non-hypothetical link between them and a recruitment policy
Judgment of the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 23 April 2020
The Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled that the concept of ‘conditions for access to employment or to occupation’ must be interpreted as covering statements made by a person suggesting that they would engage in a homophobic recruitment policy, even though no recruitment procedure had been opened, nor was planned, provided that the link between those statements and the conditions for access to employment or occupation is not hypothetical.
2. Compensation for forced job relocations IS payable irrespective of whether THE WORKER is actually disadvantaged by the relocation
Judgment of the Labour Chamber of the Spanish Supreme Court of 5 February 2020
The Spanish Supreme Court has ruled that payment of compensation for a forced relocation cannot be made conditional on the worker being worse off as a result of the move. The compensation is triggered by the relocation itself, not on the worker being prejudiced in some way by it. As a result, in this case the compensation had to be paid even though the worker already resided in the location to which they were assigned.
3. THE TIME LIMIT to challenge A dismissal notified by burofax BEGINS on the date of actual not attempted notification
Judgment of the Labour Chamber of the Spanish Supreme Court of 29 January 2020
The Spanish Supreme Court has ruled that, when a company notifies an employee of his/her dismissal by means of a certified burofax, the term the employee has to bring an action challenging the dismissal begins when he/she is actually notified of the dismissal. In this case the employer had made several unsuccessful attempts to notify the employee at their home address. As a result, the post office delivery service left the employee a notification of failed delivery, giving him 30 days from the date of the last unsuccessful delivery attempt to collect the burofax from the post office. It was therefore only once the employee actually collected the burofax from the post office that the term to challenge began.
4. The back pay of salaries awarded after a successful claim for unfair dismissal COVERS THE PERIOD UP TO THE DATE the judgment declaring the dismissal null and void is notified
Judgment of the Labour Chamber of the Spanish Supreme Court of 20 January 2020
The Spanish Supreme Court has held that the back pay of salaries awarded after a successful claim for unfair dismissal brought by an employee covers the period from the date of the dismissal to the date he/she is notified of the judgment declaring the dismissal null and void. Consequently, if the dismissal was initially declared valid and only declared null on appeal, salary must be back paid until the date the second judgment is notified.
5. THE pension SUPPLEMENT for maternity causes direct discrimination on groundS of gender
Judgment of the Labour Chamber of the High Court of Justice of the Canary Islands of 20 January 2020
The Labour Chamber of the High Court of Justice of the Canary Islands, in the light of a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, has recognised a man’s right to receive a pension supplement for maternity to which, according to the wording of the law, only women are entitled. The High Court states that the supplement causes direct discrimination on grounds of gender by excluding men who are in a comparable situation to a woman entitled to the supplement.