Discriminatory provisions in collective bargaining agreements

28 May 2024 1 min read

By Barbara Angene

At a glance

  • The Ombudsman for Equality (Ombudsman) has addressed discriminatory regulations in Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBA).
  • It assessed the wording and purpose of individual CBAs and concluded, that in the examined cases, the regulations were discriminatory.
  • The Ombudsman has instructed labour parties to reassess their CBAs and practices.

The Ombudsman issued new statements regarding family leave and CBA based one-time salary increases. The statements concern different CBAs. In its statements, the Ombudsman considered the wordings of the CBAs and the purpose and nature of the salary increase provisions in question. Therefore, the Ombudsman’s statements are case-specific and cannot necessarily be applied in all sectors covered by different CBAs.

In the examined cases, it was considered that an employee on part-time family leave should not receive the one-time increase only pro-rated but should instead receive it in full. Further, when the salary increase is considered as salary, employees on family leave will be entitled to the increase even though the family leave is unpaid at the time of the increase.

The Ombudsman instructs labour parties to reassess their CBAs and practices and also reminds employers that they will be liable if their practices are discriminatory.

More to explore

Commission for the Defense of the Rights of People with Disabilities approves bill to expand workplace inclusion for people with autism

Commission for the Defense of the Rights of People with Disabilities approves bill to expand workplace inclusion for people with autism

A new bill requiring employers to adopt measures supporting autistic workers has cleared two legislative committees.

US federal: EEOC withdraws affirmative action guidance under Title VII

US federal: EEOC withdraws affirmative action guidance under Title VII

The EEOC has withdrawn two affirmative action guidance documents, stating that they are inconsistent with Title VII.

US federal: DOJ concludes disparate-impact liability guidelines under Title VII are unconstitutional

US federal: DOJ concludes disparate-impact liability guidelines under Title VII are unconstitutional

The DOJ has challenged disparate impact liability under Title VII, but employers should continue adverse impact monitoring.

New legislation on mobbing and discrimination (update)

New legislation on mobbing and discrimination (update)

Employers will have explicit obligations to set internal rules to prevent mobbing.

Tribunal upholds claims of indirect sex discrimination and harassment related to sex and gender critical belief over trans-inclusive toilets and changing policy

Tribunal upholds claims of indirect sex discrimination and harassment related to sex and gender critical belief over trans-inclusive toilets and changing policy

Tribunal rules NHS England’s trans-inclusive facilities policy was indirect sex discrimination and not justified under UK equality law.

US Federal: Department of Justice secures first settlement under civil rights fraud initiative

US Federal: Department of Justice secures first settlement under civil rights fraud initiative

IBM pays USD17 million to settle DOJ allegations regarding anti-discrimination practices First resolution under Civil Rights Fraud Initiative .

Questions? Launch AI Assist