The House referred to the European Court the question of whether the extension of the minimum period of employment before employment rights were acquired, was discriminatory.
Citations:
Times 14-Mar-1997, [1997] UKHL 11, [1997] 2 All ER 273, [1997] 1 WLR 473, [1997] ICR 371, [1997] IRLR 315
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for Employment, Ex Parte Seymour-Smith and Another CA 3-Aug-1995
The rule which extended to two years, the time before the vesting of employment rights was discriminatory, since it affected more women than men. . .
Cited by:
Reference from – Seymour-Smith and Perez; Regina v Secretary of State for Employment, Ex Parte Seymour-Smith and Another ECJ 9-Feb-1999
Awards made by an industrial tribunal for unfair dismissal are equivalent to pay for equal pay purposes. A system which produced a differential effect between sexes was not indirect discrimination unless the difference in treatment between men and . .
Reference to ECJ – Regina v Secretary of State For Employment Ex Parte Seymour-Smith and Another (No 2) HL 17-Feb-2000
Although fewer men were affected by the two year qualifying period before becoming entitled not to be dismissed unfairly, the difference was objectively justified by the need to encourage employers to take staff on, and was not directly derived from . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Discrimination, Employment
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.158886