(2) In the application of subsection (1) no account shall be taken of special treatment afforded to women in connection with pregnancy or childbirth." Labour market is combined of many relationships, together with variable of space. 23 The answer to the question submitted by the House of Lords, which concerns Directive 76/207, must take account of that general context. In this program, government representatives and experienced tax attorneys will provide timely insights on recent updates.26 Furthermore, contrary to the submission of the United Kingdom, dismissal of a pregnant woman recruited for an indefinite period cannot be justified on grounds relating to her inability to fulfil a fundamental condition of her employment contract. The availability of an employee is necessarily, for the employer, a precondition for the proper performance of the employment contract. However, the protection afforded by Community law to a woman during pregnancy and after childbirth cannot be dependent on whether her presence at work during maternity is essential to the proper functioning of the undertaking in which she is employed. Any contrary interpretation would render ineffective the provisions of the directive.Dentons is a global legal practice providing client services worldwide through its member firms and affiliates. This website and its publications are not designed to provide legal or other advice and you should not take, or refrain from taking, action based on its content. Based on this registration, he is required to obtain ten training credits per calendar year in each registered principal legal practice area in accordance with the standards set by the Dutch Bar. 16 As is apparent from the documents before the Court, the question submitted for a preliminary ruling relates to a contract of employment concluded for an indefinite period. Gerrard Boot teaches labour law in the bachelor's and master's programmes and also in courses offered in the post-academic education programme (JPAO). His research is conducted as part of the research programme ‘Reform of Social Legislation’.Latter' s maternity leave and who cannot do so because, shortly after her recruitment, she is herself found to be pregnant. 30 The costs incurred by the United Kingdom and the Commission of the European Communities, which have submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable. Since https://www.tumblr.com/leidenarbeidsrechtadvocaat are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Contact Us Leiden Arbeidsrecht Advocaat Email: [email protected] Phone: +31715690723 Dellaertweg 1 Leiden, Zuid Holland, NL 2316 WZ 6 The relevant national legislation in this case is the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. It is apparent from the documents before the Court that Mrs Webb cannot rely either on section 54 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, which prohibits unfair dismissal, or on section 60 of that statute, which provides that dismissal on the ground of pregnancy constitutes unfair dismissal. Under section 64, workers who have been employed for less than two years are not entitled to claim that protection. 22 Furthermore, Article 10 of Directive 92/85 provides that there is to be no exception to, or derogation from, the prohibition on the dismissal of pregnant women during that period, save in exceptional cases not connected with their condition. "(1) Section 1, and the provisions of Parts II and III relating to sex discrimination against women, are to be read as applying equally to the treatment of men, and for that purpose shall have effect with such modifications as are requisite. Beijing Dacheng Law Offices, LLP ("大成") is an independent law firm, and not a member or affiliate of Dentons.As the Court pointed out (in paragraph 16), there is no reason to distinguish such an illness from any other illness. In its view, the real and significant reason for Mrs Webb' s dismissal was her anticipated inability to carry out the primary task for which she had been recruited, namely to cover the job of Mrs Stewart during the latter' s absence on maternity leave. According to the Industrial Tribunal, if a man recruited for the same purpose as Mrs Webb had told his employer that he would be absent for a period comparable to the likely absence of Mrs Webb, he would have been dismissed. 24 First, in response to the House of Lords' inquiry, there can be no question of comparing the situation of a woman who finds herself incapable, by reason of pregnancy discovered very shortly after the conclusion of the employment contract, of performing the task for which she was recruited with that of a man similarly incapable for medical or other reasons. 28 The fact that the main proceedings concern a woman who was initially recruited to replace another employee during the latter' s maternity leave but who was herself found to be pregnant shortly after her recruitment cannot affect the answer to be given to the national court.Attendees will gain practical guidance to help taxpayers efficiently and effectively resolve audits and appeals in today’s changed environment. " Ziekte of the cases of persons of different sex or marital status under section 1(1) ... must be such that the relevant circumstances in the one case are the same, or not materially different, in the other."18 Article 2(1) of the directive states that "the principle of equal treatment shall mean that there shall be no discrimination whatsoever on grounds of sex either directly or indirectly by reference in particular to marital or family status". Under Article 5(1), "application of the principle of equal treatment with regard to working conditions, including the conditions governing dismissal, means that men and women shall be guaranteed the same conditions without discrimination on grounds of sex". 14 The House of Lords found that the special feature of this case lay in the fact that the pregnant woman who was dismissed had been recruited precisely in order to replace, at least initially, an employee who was herself due to take maternity leave. The national court is uncertain whether it was unlawful to dismiss Mrs Webb on the ground of her pregnancy, or whether greater weight should be attached to the reasons for which she was recruited. 25 As Mrs Webb rightly argues, pregnancy is not in any way comparable with a pathological condition, and even less so with unavailability for work on non-medical grounds, both of which are situations that may justify the dismissal of a woman without discriminating on grounds of sex. Moreover, in https://flipboard.com/@MatthijsJan2025 , cited above, the Court drew a clear distinction between pregnancy and illness, even where the illness is attributable to pregnancy but manifests itself after the maternity leave.12 The Industrial Tribunal also held that Mrs Webb had not suffered indirect discrimination. More women than men were likely to be unable to do the job for which they had been recruited because of the possibility of pregnancy. However, according to the Industrial Tribunal, the employers had shown that the reasonable needs of their business required that the person recruited to cover for Mrs Stewart during her maternity leave be available.