翻訳と辞書 Words near each other ・ R v Richards ・ R v Richardson ・ R v Rodgers ・ R v Ron Engineering and Construction (Eastern) Ltd ・ R v Ruzic ・ R v Ryan ・ R v S (RD) ・ R v Saibene ・ R v Sansregret ・ R v Saskatchewan Wheat Pool ・ R v Sault Ste-Marie (City of) ・ R v Savage ・ R v Schoombie ・ R v Schoonwinkel ・ R v Seaboyer ・ R v Secretary of State for Employment, ex p Seymour-Smith ・ R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex p Bancoult (No 1) ・ R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex p Bancoult (No 2) ・ R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex p Rees-Mogg ・ R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex p World Development Movement Ltd ・ R v Secretary of State for Home Affairs, ex p O'Brien ・ R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Doody ・ R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Fire Brigades Union ・ R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Northumbria Police Authority ・ R v Sharpe ・ R v Shein ・ R v Shelembe ・ R v Shivpuri ・ R v Sinclair ・ R v Skinner Dictionary Lists mini英和辞書 mini和英辞書 Webster 1913 Latin-English FOLDOC Wikipedia English ウィキペディア

翻訳と辞書　辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ] スポンサード リンク R v Secretary of State for Employment, ex p Seymour-Smith ： ウィキペディア英語版 R v Secretary of State for Employment, ex p Seymour-Smith ''R (Seymour-Smith) v Secretary of State for Employment'' () (UKHL 12 ) and (1999) (C-167/97 ) is a landmark case in UK labour law and European labour law on the qualifying period of work before an employee accrues unfair dismissal rights. It was held by the House of Lords and the European Court of Justice that a two-year qualifying period had a disparate impact on women given that significantly fewer women worked long enough to be protected by the unfair dismissal law, but that the government could, at that point in the 1990s, succeed in an objective justification of increasing recruitment by employers. ==Facts== Ms Nicole Seymour-Smith and Ms Perez had made a claim against the Secretary of State for Employment that the United Kingdom's qualifying period of two years for unfair dismissal constituted indirect discrimination against women under the Treaty of the European Union, article 119 (now TFEU art 157) and the Equal Treatment Directive 76/207/EEC. Ms Seymour-Smith was dismissed after less than a year's work in 1991 for Christo & Co, and Ms Perez had similarly claimed unfair dismissal after losing her job at Matthew Stone Restoration. Statistically fewer women had long enough periods of service as men to accrue the protection of unfair dismissal law, for data collected between 1985 and 1991 when Ms Seymour-Smith was working. (There was evidence that after that time the gap had been starting to narrow.) The UK qualifying period resulted from the Unfair Dismissal (Variation of Qualifying Period) Order 1985, which had raised the qualifying period for all employees from its original period of one year under the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 section 64(1).〔Under the Unfair Dismissal (Variation of Qualifying Period) Order 1979 (SI 1979/959) the period had been raised to one year. Under the Employment Act 1980 the period was lengthened from one year to two years in cases of employers employing fewer than twenty employees.〕 Elias QC represented the government and Allen QC represented the employees. Before the conclusion of the litigation, in 1999, the newly elected Labour government reduced the qualifying period for unfair dismissal from two years to one year,〔See SI 1999/1436〕 currently found in the Employment Rights Act 1996 section 108. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「R v Secretary of State for Employment, ex p Seymour-Smith」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.