Réalisées par des traducteurs professionnels, des entreprises, des pages web ou traductions disponibles gratuitement.
the law requires employers to have objective and acceptable grounds for dismissal.
in another case a school girl, jo hale, settled her case against her school after the school agreed to allow girls to wear trousers from autumn 2000. • following the decision of the european court of human rights in smith and grady v. the united kingdom, the government lifted its ban on the employment of gays and lesbians in the armed forces from january 2000.
furthermore, we remain concerned about the protection of employees from dismissal due to
only the maximum of 30 days absence from the workplace per annum, plus annual leave, were included in the calculation of the length of service.
only if employee lodges a complaint with the tribunal and the dismissal is considered unfair.
only for businesses with more than 30 one month salary for each year of employees and employees with 6 service 1) months seniority.
the protection of domestic workers against dismissal on the ground of maternity is not expressly provided by the law.
first, rulings, equipment and functions of equality advisers have to be redrafted and strengthened.
this therefore constituted grave misconduct on the part of the worker, which is in itself a cause for dismissal.
d'autres part, l'indemnité de logement n'est versée qu'une fois au titre de deux agents vivant en commun et au taux correspondant au salaire le plus élevé des habitants du foyer. il était soutenu que ces indemnités ayant nature de rémunération, la rémunération des femmes, agents d'exploitation minières était amputée par rapport à celles des hommes se trouvant dans la même situation.
he had dismissed the claimant and she had argued that her dismissal was due to the fact that she had not yielded to the advances of her boss.
the respondent’s defence was that the claimant’s dismissal was due to her inefficiency as a secretary (non-observance of office hours, frequent unjustified absences, indifference to the carrying out of certain tasks) and to her participation in a plot to overthrow her boss.
"the decision in the mary brown case is directly concerned with a dismissal during a woman’s pregnancy.
textes adoptés 1.1 la parité la loi sur la parité dans le champ politique a été adoptée par le parlement le 3 mai 2000.
in particular, article 2 provides for a ban on dismissal from the beginning of the pregnancy to the child's first birthday.
this leave must last at least one month and account for at least 50% of the individual's working time.
that its actions constituted discrimination and constructive dismissal on the grounds of sex and marital status, contrary to the provisions of the employment equality act, 1977.
a pregnant employee was dismissed on account of an unjustified absence from work, in compliance with the provisions of the collective agreement. the worker contested the dismissal, considering that it was contrary to the specific rule provided for by act 1204/1971, aimed at granting very specific protection to working mothers during pregnancy.
although the employer stated that the dismissal resulted from various reproaches as to the quality of her work, the employee will probably now file a new claim for victimization under the act of 4 august 1978.
according to the new legislation the employed person is entitled to timeoff from work on grounds of force majeure for urgent family reasons in cases of sickness or accident making the immediate presence of the worker indispensable.
it had finally considered that the facts put forward by the respondent had not been proven and that the real reason for the dismissal was the claimant’s refusal to yield to sexual advances by her boss.
the claimant, accompanied by her husband, had visited him at home on his birthday and during christmas holidays, and had, on these occasions, offered presents to him and his children.