Seminar program

Notion of discrimination at workplace

International acts on equality and non-discrimination at workplace

Grounds of discrimination at workplace

Legal exceptions from principle of non-discrimination at workplace

Themes of abstracts:

1. Legislation of Ukraine on equality at work and ILO standards

2. Genetic discrimination: trends and prospects

3. European Union legislation of on equality at work

4. Positive actions: their types and aftereffects

Sources:

1. Equality at work: tackling the challenges. Global report under the follow-up to the ILO Declaration on fundamental principles and rights at work. Report of the Director-General. – 2007// http://www.ilo.org/global/publications/ilo-bookstore/order-online/books/WCMS_082607/lang--en/index.htm

2. Equality at work: The continuing challenge - Global Report under the follow-up to the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work// http://www.ilo.org/ilc/ILCSessions/100thSession/reports/reports-submitted/WCMS_154779/lang--en/index.htm

3. Servais J.-M. International Labour Law// Kluwer Law International. – 2011. – 372 p.

4. Bronstein A. International and Comparative Labour Law. Current challenges// Palgrave Macmillan, ILO. – Geneve. – 2009. – 285 p.

5. Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111)//http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO:12100:P12100_INSTRUMENT_ID:312256:NO

6. Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100) // Gender Equality and Decent Work: Selected ILO Conventions and Recommendations that promote gender equality as of 2012. – 2010. -210 p.

7. Social Policy (Basic Aims and Standards) Convention, 1962 (No. 117)// Gender Equality and Decent Work: Selected ILO Conventions and Recommendations that promote gender equality as of 2012. – 2010. -210 p.

8. Workers with Family Responsibilities Convention, 1981 (No. 156)// Gender Equality and Decent Work: Selected ILO Conventions and Recommendations that promote gender equality as of 2012. – 2010. -210 p.

9. Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (Disabled Persons) Convention, 1983 (No. 159)//http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO:12100:P12100_INSTRUMENT_ID:312304:NO

10. Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Recommendation, 1958 (No. 111) // Gender Equality and Decent Work: Selected ILO Conventions and Recommendations that promote gender equality as of 2012. – 2010. -210 p.

11. Older Workers Recommendation, 1980 (No. 162)

12. Workers with Family Responsibilities Recommendation, 1981 (No. 165)// Gender Equality and Decent Work: Selected ILO Conventions and Recommendations that promote gender equality as of 2012. – 2010. -210 p.

Case materials

Case 1

Mr. Olaf applied for employment as a cabin attendant with Best Airlines. He went through a four-stage selection process comprising a pre-screening interview, psychometric tests, a formal interview and a final screening process involving role-play. At the end of the selection process Mr. Olaf together with eleven others, was found to be a suitable candidate for employment. This decision, however, was subject to a pre-employment medical examination, which included a blood test for HIV/AIDS. The medical examination found him to be clinically fit and thus suitable for employment. However, the blood test showed that he was HIV positive. As a result, the medical report was altered to read that the appellant was “H.I.V. positive” and therefore “unsuitable”. The Best Airlines mentioned, that this practice was “based on considerations of medical, safety and operational grounds” and that BA’s competitors apply a similar employment policy.

The Best Airlines also said that its flight crew had to be fit for world-wide duty. In the course of their duties they are required to fly to yellow fever endemic countries. To fly to these countries they must be vaccinated against yellow fever, in accordance with guidelines issued by the National Department of Health. Persons who are HIV positive may react negatively to this vaccine and may, therefore, not take it. If they do not take it, however, they run the risk not only of contracting yellow fever, but also of transmitting it to others, including passengers.

Mr. Olaf mentioned, that the level CD4+ cells is 489 and his prognosis was excellent. He is able to be vaccinated against yellow fever, and is not prone to opportunistic infections.

Is there any violation of principle of non-discrimination?

Case 2

Mrs. Collin worked part-time as a member of check-in staff for National Airways, a private company. In common with all the approximately 30,000 National Airways staff in contact with the public, she was required to wear a uniform. National Airways considered that the wearing of a uniform played an important role in maintaining a professional image and in strengthening recognition of the Company's brand.

Until 2004 the uniform for women included a high-necked blouse. In 2004 National Airways introduced a new uniform, which included an open‑necked blouse for women, to be worn with a cravat that could be tucked in or tied loosely at the neck. A wearer guide was produced, which set out detailed rules about every aspect of the uniform. It included the following passage, in a section entitled “Female Accessories”:

“ Any accessory or clothing item that the employee is required to have for mandatory religious reasons should at all times be covered up by the uniform. If however this is impossible to do given the nature of the item and the way it is to be worn, then approval is required through local management as to the suitability of the design to ensure compliance with the uniform standards, unless such approval is already contained in the uniform guidelines.... No other items are acceptable to be worn with the uniform. You will be required to remove any item of jewellery that does not conform to the above regulations.”

When an employee reported for work wearing an item which did not comply with the uniform code, it was National Airways' practice to ask the employee to remove the item in question or, if necessary, to return home to change clothes. The time spent by the employee in putting right the uniform would be deducted from his or her wages.

Until 20 May 2006 when Mrs. Collin wore a cross at work she concealed it under her clothing. On 20 May 2006 she decided to start wearing the cross openly, as a sign of her commitment to her faith. When she arrived at work that day her manager asked her to remove the cross and chain or conceal them under the cravat. Mrs. Collin refused and was dismissed.

Is there any violation of principle of non-discrimination?

Дата добавления: 2015-10-29