Einde inhoudsopgave
Remedies for infringements of EU law in legal relationships between private parties (LBF vol. 18) 2019/4.2.8.1
4.2.8.1 The Dutch Act on Equal Treatment on the basis of Age in Employment
mr. I.V. Aronstein, datum 01-09-2019
- Datum
01-09-2019
- Auteur
mr. I.V. Aronstein
- JCDI
JCDI:ADS141416:1
- Vakgebied(en)
EU-recht / Algemeen
Burgerlijk procesrecht / Algemeen
Voetnoten
Voetnoten
See the Preamble and the travauxpreparatoires to the Act of 17 December 2003. Published in Stb. 2004, 30 and lastly amended on 14 June 2014 (Stb. 2014, 216).
Cf. Tweede Kamer 2001-2002, 28 170, no. 3, pp. 10 and 19. Tweede Kamer 2001-2002, 28 170, no. 5, pp. 6 and 14.
Article 7(1)(a) and (b) concern exceptions to the prohibition of age discrimination in the WGBL which are both further regulated in other laws. It concerns exceptions related to (a) employment policy and access to employment as well as exceptions related to (b) the age at which one as the right to retire and to enjoy state pension.
In the travaux prépratatoires much attention is paid to the objective justification and the proportionality test. The legislature has very precisely set out the steps and questions essential to the proportionality test. E.g. Eerste Kamer 2003-2004, 28 170, C, pp. 6- 9. Tweede Kamer 2001-2002, 28 170, no. 7, pp. 1-7. Tweede Kamer 2001-2002, 28 170, no. 5, pp. 14-17 and p. 32. Tweede Kamer 2001-2002, 28 170, no. 3, pp. 24-36.
Cf. Eerste Kamer 2003-2004, 28 170, C, p. 6.
Tweede Kamer 2001-2002, 28 170, no. 3, p. 24.
Since July 2015 Article 7:681 BW, on the voidability of a prohibited discriminatory termination, applies. The provision stipulates that the prohibited discriminatory termination of an employment contract is voidable or that, alternatively, a reasonable compensation for the discriminatory termination can be requested. This option for reasonable compensation does however not apply to terminations dating from before the new law entered into force (July 2015). Tweede Kamer 2013-2014, 33 818, A. Tweede Kamer 2013-2014, 33 818, no. 3, p. 117, pp. 124 and 126. Nonetheless, the former Article 11 WGBL remains applicable to all terminations of an employment contract dated before the new law (Wet Werk en Zekerheid) entered into force – i.e. July 2015. Cf. Article XXII (3) in Staatsblad 2014, 216: Article 7:681 (1) BW.
After all, the case of Mangold concerns the employment on the basis of a fixed-term contract – i.e. no termination yet – and in Kücükdeveci it concerned the termination by which only a discriminatory term of notice was used – Kücükdeveci’s dismissal as such was not discriminatory.
Article 13 WGBL reads: “Bedingen in strijd met deze wet zijn nietig”. Cf. in interlocutory proceedings, Rb. Amsterdam 5 January 2015, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2015:40, para. 13 and Rb. Amsterdam 21 February 2011, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2011:BU5771, para. 11 = Rb. Amsterdam 21 February 2011, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2011:BP6875.
Cf. Tweede Kamer, 2003–2004, 28 170, no. 27 (Letter of the Minister).
Cf. Tweede Kamer, 2001–2002, 28 170, no. 3, Memorie van Toelichting (Explanatory Memorandum), p. 41.
197. In the Netherlands, Directive 2000/78 has been implemented in, amongst others, the Act on Equal treatment on the basis of Age in Employment(Wet Gelijke Behandeling op grond van Leeftijd bij de Arbeid; WGBL).1 The WGBL applies inter alia to employers and social partners.2 Articles 3 to 6 WGBL prohibit the age discrimination against employees. Article 7 WGBL contains grounds on the basis of which employers may deviate from that prohibition.
Apart from two concrete type of exceptions laid down in Article 7(a) and (b) and other laws3, Article 7(1)(c) WGBL provides that age discrimination can be objectively justified if the distinction serves a legitimate aim and if the means to achieve that aim are appropriate and necessary. Through this proportionality test, Article 7(1)(c) of the WGBL gives employers the opportunity to justify the alleged age discrimination.4 The constituent criteria of the proportionality test in Article 7 WGBL are similar to those in Article 6 Directive and in the Court of Justice’s case law.5 The Explanatory Memorandum states that the proportionality test applies on a case-by-case basis, except for instance when a widely applicable clause in a collective agreement is subject to the proportionality test and found to be in conflict with the Directive – in such a case there is no longer a reason to scrutinise the particular clause for every single case.6
198. Article 11 WGBL determines that in case an employment contract is terminated in spite of the prohibition of age discrimination, the termination is, upon request of the employee within two months, voidable (vernietigbaar) on the basis of Article 7:681BW.7 Article 11 WGBL would not be applicable in a case like Mangold or Kücükdeveci.8 However, Article 13 WGBL provides that contractual clauses in conflict with the WGBL are null and void (nietig).9 In principle, the nullity affects only the discriminatory provision of an individual contract or a collective agreement10; the rest of the contract remains intact.11