Treść książki

Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
26
PreliminaryPart
explainedobjectively,ledtoanunjustifieddiferentiationofemployees,froman
equaltreatmentperspective.Iaddresstheproblemoftheunfoundeddiferentia-
tionofworkersinlightofthebasicEuropeanlawofequality.Ideliberatelydonot
usetheterm“discrimination”,asnoMemberStatelawornoprivateinternational
lawprohibitsemployerstoregulatelabourrelationsonthebasisofdiferentna-
tionalsystemsofsubstantivelabourlaw.Tephenomenonofdiscriminationin
employmentrelationshipseventuateswhenanemployerapplieseithercriteria
thatareprohibitedbylawtodiferentiateworkers(directdiscrimination)oruses
seeminglyneutralcriteria,thatwhenused,producenegativeconsequencespro-
hibitedbylawinthecaseofalargenumberofemployees(indirectdiscrimi-
nation).Indirectdiscriminationshouldberegardedasasituationhiddenunder
aseeminglyneutrallegalcriteriafordiferentiationofemployeesorasapractice
usedbyemployerswhodonotseemtodiferentiatebetweenthepowers,dutiesor
privilegesbecauseoflegallyprohibited,openlydiscriminatoryconditions,which
leadstonon-beneficialregulationofasocialgroup(oramajorpartofone)be-
causeoftheseeminglyobjectivecriteriausedfordiferentiation.Itisanattempt
todeterminewhetherjurisprudenceusestwoindicatorswhendealingwiththe
issueindirectdiscriminationinaworkrelationship.Oneofthemisthenumber
ofpeopleafectedbytheconditionreferredtodiferentiatethelegalsituation.
Telatterallowstodeterminethelegalconsequencesofthisdiferentiation.Te
caseofindirectdiscriminationoccursinthosesituationswhereonthebasisof
anapparentlyneutralcriterionoflegalrepercussionsoccurinaparticularsocial
group,separateonthebasisofanapparentlyneutralcriterionofdiferentiation,
andafectmoremembersofthegroup.
Inacompiled,consideredandreviseddraftregulation,whichwasreportedby
theEuropeanCommissiontotheEuropeanCouncilonApril28,1976concern-
ingthebasisofarticles149,paragraph2oftheTreatyoftheEuropeanproposal
wasincludedinabindingsettlementofaconflictasthesubstantivelawofla-
bourforceintheMemberStates.28Insupportofthisproject,interalia,stated
thatthecriteriausedbytherulesofprivateinternationallawapplicableinthe
MemberStatesshowsignificantdiferences.TeabovestatementoftheEuropean
Commissionshouldbetakenascontemporarycriticismofthelegalsituationin
whichtheMemberStates,thenthepredecessoroftoday’sEuropeanUnioncould
notachieveconsistentregulationofconflictsoflawrulesofsubstantivelabour
lawwithinparticularMemberStates.Diferentiationofthelegalpositionofpri-
vatepartiestoemploymentrelationships,dependingonwhatrulesaresubjectto
labourlawhasbeenevaluatednegativelybytheEuropeanCommission.Inthe
explanatorymemorandum,thereasonsforwhichadraftregulationcontaining
28CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunities,amendedproposalforaRegulationofthe
CouncilontheprovisiononconflictsonemploymentrelationshipswithintheCommunity,COM
(75)653final.