We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 March 2019
Sometimes it seems that the EC directives could be a framework for the Canadian anti-discrimination system, too. They open ways to create procedures which are working for a long time in Canada. This does not mean this can be adopted in EC member states because there are too many peculiarities amongst domestic legislation. The problem seems to combine the directives, formed by influence from the North American legislation,130 with the European understanding of law. Especially in Germany, where employees are well protected by the law, the well-balanced system of rights is in danger. This danger does not seem to be banished by the new AGG which adopted many regulations of the directives without giving answers to questions of its implementation. But seeing the practice in other countries could bring thought-provoking impulses for the embodiment and the use of anti-discrimination law.
1 Federal Law Gazette (Bundesgesetzblatt) I, 1987 (2006).Google Scholar
2 See e.g. Rainer Nickel, Widening the Scope: Anti-Discrimination Law, Social Equality, and the Right to Equal Treatment in: Annual of German and European Law Vol. 1, 353 (Russell Miller/Peer Zumbansen eds. 2003); Eduard Picker, Anti-discrimination as a Program of Private law?, 7 German Law Journal 771 (2003), available at: htp://www.germanlawjournal.com; Gregor Thüsing, Following the U.S. Example: European Employment Discrimination Law and the Impact of Council Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC, 19 The international journal of comparative labour law and industrial relations 187 (2003); Bauer, Jobst-Hubertus, Europäische Antidiskriminierungsrichtlinien und ihr Einfluss auf das deutsche Arbeitsrecht, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2672 (2001).Google Scholar
3 Draft bill of 16 December 2004, printed matter of the Federal Parliament (Bundestag), legislative period 15, no. 4538 (Bundestagsdrucksache 15/4538). On 17 June 2005 the Bundestag adopted the bill, but on 8 July 2005 the Bundesrat (Federal Council) objected and demanded that the committee for joint consideration of bills be convened (see Art. 77 para. 2 sent. 1 Basic Law). Because the Bundestag was elected early in autumn 2005 instead of 2006, the legislative procedure was finished without any result. This is the effect of the so-called Diskontinuität of the Bundestag.Google Scholar
4 See e.g. comments of the Bundesvereinigung der Deutschen Arbeitgeberverbände, available at http://www.bda-online.de/www/bdaonline.nsf/id/B770DB33A0DE40FBC1256DE70069F41B (visited on 28 August 2006); Arbeitgeber fordern weitere Überarbeitung des geänderten Antidiskriminierungsgesetzes, Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 293 (2005).Google Scholar
5 Stellungnahme des Deutschen Anwaltvereins e.V. durch die DAV-Ausschüsse Arbeitsrecht und Zivilrecht zu dem Regierungsentwurf eines Allgemeinen Gleichbehandlungsgesetzes, Neue Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht, Heft 12, VII (2006), Bauer, Jobst-Hubertus, Berliner Etikettenschwindel: der neue Gesetzentwurf zur Umsetzung der Europäischen Antidiskriminierungsrichtlinien, Der Betriebs-Berater 61, Heft 20, I (2006), Gaul, Björn/Naumann, Eva, Entwurf des Allgemeinen Gleichbehandlungsgesetzes, Der Arbeitsrechtsberater 176 (2006), Bauer, Jobst-Hubertus/Thüsing, Gregor/Schunder, Achim, Das Allgemeine Gleichbehandlungsgesetz – Alter Wein in neuen Schläuchen? in: Neue Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht 774 (2006).Google Scholar
6 Treaty on European Union, consolidated version, Official Journal of the European Communities 2002, C 325, 24/12/2004, p. 5; Treaty establishing the European Community, consolidated version Official Journal of the European Communities 2002, C 325, 24/12/2004, p. 33.Google Scholar
7 Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975, Official Journal L 045, 19/02/1975, p. 19.Google Scholar
8 Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976, Official Journal L 039, 14/02/1976, p. 40.Google Scholar
9 Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992, Official Journal L 348, 28/11/1992, p. 1.Google Scholar
10 Art. 10 Directive 92/85/EEC.Google Scholar
11 A fifth anti-discrimination directive was passed in 2004, see Council Directive 2004/113/EC of 13 December 2004, Official Journal of the European Union L 373, 21/12/2004, p. 37. This directive is, however, without influence on the field of labour law. It concerns the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services.Google Scholar
12 Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000, Official Journal L 180, 19/07/2000, p. 26.Google Scholar
13 Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000, Official Journal L 303, 02/12/2000, p. 16.Google Scholar
14 Art. 1 Directive 2000/78/EC.Google Scholar
15 Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002, Official Journal of the European Communities L 269, 05/10/2002, p. 15 amends the Directive 76/207/EEC mentioned before.Google Scholar
16 Council Directive 97/80/EC of 15 December 1997, Official Journal L 14, 20/01/1998, p. 6. The Directive 98/52/EC (Council Directive 98/52/EC of 13 July 1998, Official Journal L 2005, 22/07/1998, p. 66) only extends the Directive 97/80/EC to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.Google Scholar
17 Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006, publication in Official Journal pending, the legislation procedure is available at: http://europa.eu.int/prelex/detail_dossier_real.cfm?CL=en&DosId=190518 (visited on 28 August 2006).Google Scholar
18 Directive 2000/43/EC (race/ethnic origin); Directive 2000/78/EC (religion or belief/ disability/ age/ sexual orientation); Directive 2002/73/EC (sex).Google Scholar
19 § 1 AGG.Google Scholar
20 Art. 2 Directives 2000/43/EC, 2000/78/EC and 2002/73/EC.Google Scholar
21 Art. 3 Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC.Google Scholar
22 This must not be mixed with the question if the directives could have a direct effect after the time lapse for the implementation under special circumstances.Google Scholar
23 Art. 3 Directives 2000/43/EC, 2000/78/EC and 2002/73/EC.Google Scholar
24 See e.g. § 2 AGG.Google Scholar
25 See e.g. Wisskirchen, Gerlind, Der Umgang mit dem Allgemeinen Gleichbehandlungsgesetz – Ein “Kochrezept” für Arbeitgeber, Der Betrieb 1491 (2006), Annuß, Georg, Das Allgemeine Gleichbehandlungsgesetz im Arbeitsrecht, Der Betriebs-Berater 1629 (2006).Google Scholar
26 Art. 4 Directive 2000/43/EC; art. 4 para. 1 Directive 2000/73/EC; art. 2 para. 6 Directive 2002/73/EC.Google Scholar
27 Art. 4 Directive 2000/43/EC; art. 4 para. 1 Directive 2000/73/EC; art. 2 para. 6 Directive 2002/73/EC.Google Scholar
28 § 8 para. 1 AGG.Google Scholar
29 Art. 5 Directive 2000/43/EC and art. 7 Directive 2000/78/EC, but not in Directive 2002/73/EC. Now Art. 3 Directive 2006/54/EC rules positive action. For further information see: Daniela Caruso, Limits of the Classic Method: Positive Action in the European Union After the New Equality Directives, 44 Harvard International Law Journal 331 (2003).Google Scholar
30 § 5 AGG.Google Scholar
31 Art. 5 Directive 2000/43/EC and art. 7 Directive 2000/78/EC, Georg Annuß, Das Allgemeine Gleichbehandlungsgesetz im Arbeitsrecht, Der Betriebs-Berater 1629 (2006).Google Scholar
32 Art. 4 para. 2 Directive 2000/78/EC, § 9 AGG.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33 Art. 6 Directive 2000/78/EC, § 10 AGG.Google Scholar
34 § 10 sentence 3 no. 5 AGG.Google Scholar
35 Art. 9 Directive 2000/78/EC; art. 7 Directive 2000/43/EC; art. 6 Directive 2002/73/EC.Google Scholar
36 Art. 9 and art. 11 Directive 2000/78/EC; art. 7 and 9 Directive 2000/43/EC; art. 6 and 7 Directive 2002/73/EC.Google Scholar
37 § 27 para. 1 no. 3 AGG, see also the competence ruled in § 28 para. 1 AGG for this facultative task.Google Scholar
38 § 21 para. 5 AGG. Take note, in consideration of the wording this only aims for compensation based upon § 15 paras. 1, 2 AGG.Google Scholar
39 Art. 9 para. 3 Directive 2000/78/EC; art. 7 para. 3 Directive 2000/43/EC; art. 6 para. 4 Directive 2002/73/EC.Google Scholar
40 See e.g. Stellungnahme des Deutschen Anwaltvereins e.V. durch die DAV-Ausschüsse Arbeitsrecht und Zivilrecht zu dem Regierungsentwurf eines Allgemeinen Gleichbehandlungsgesetzes, Neue Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht, Heft 12, VII (2006).Google Scholar
41 § 2 para. 4 AGG.Google Scholar
42 In this way Wisskirchen, Gerlind, Der Umgang mit dem Allgemeinen Gleichbehandlungsgesetz – Ein “Kochrezept” für Arbeitgeber, Der Betrieb 1491 (2006), Annuß, Georg, Das Allgemeine Gleichbehandlungsgesetz im Arbeitsrecht, Der Betriebs-Berater 1629 (2006).Google Scholar
43 See Jobst-Hubertus Bauer in: Jobst-Hubertus Bauer/Gregor Thüsing/Achim Schunder, Das Allgemeine Gleichbehandlungsgesetz – Alter Wein in neuen Schläuchen? in: Neue Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht 774 (2006) who thinks a discriminatory dismissal is covered by the established dismissal protection law. On the other side is the opinion of Gregor Thüsing who speaks about a failure of this provision in the same essay.Google Scholar
44 Art. 8 para. 1 Directive 2000/43/EC; art. 10 para. 1 Directive 2000/78/EC. Directive 2002/73/EC does not rule the burden of proof because in the case of discrimination based on sex Art. 4 Directive 97/80/EC was applicable.Google Scholar
45 § 22 AGG rules verbatim: “Wenn im Streitfall die eine Partei Indizien beweist, die eine Benachteiligung wegen eines in § 1 genannten Grundes vermuten lassen, trägt die andere Partei die Beweislast dafür, dass kein Verstoß gegen die Bestimmungen zum Schutz vor Benachteiligung vorgelegen hat.” Google Scholar
46 See Gregor Thüsing in: Jobst-Hubertus Bauer/Gregor Thüsing/Achim Schunder, Das Allgemeine Gleichbehandlungsgesetz – Alter Wein in neuen Schläuchen? in: Neue Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht 774 (2006).Google Scholar
47 Information of the Federal Ministry of Justice, Neue Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht, Heft 10, IX (2006), see also Federal Labour Court, Decision of 5 February 2004 in: Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2112 (2004) for an interpretation of § 611 a para. 1 sentence 3 German Civil Code.Google Scholar
48 See Boesche, Katharina Vera, Beweislast im Regierungsentwurf eines Antidiskriminierungsgesetzes, Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht, 264, 265 (2005) with her proposal for a formulation.Google Scholar
49 Art. 15 Directive 2000/43/EC, Art. 17 Directive 2000/78/EC.Google Scholar
50 Art. 6 para. 2 Directive 2002/73/EC.Google Scholar
51 § 15 paras. 1, 2 AGG.Google Scholar
52 § 15 para. 1 sentence 2. Take note, such a statement is missing in § 15 para. 2 AGG (non financial loss).Google Scholar
53 Gregor Thüsing in: Bauer, Jobst-Hubertus/Thüsing, Gregor/Schunder, Achim, Das Allgemeine Gleichbehandlungsgesetz – Alter Wein in neuen Schläuchen? in: Neue Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht 774 (2006) with clue to the decision of the European Court of Justice of 22 April 1997, C-180/95 in: Neue Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht 645 (1997).Google Scholar
54 § 13 AGG.Google Scholar
55 § 14 AGG.Google Scholar
56 Art. 13 Directive 2000/43/EC, art. 8a Directive 2002/73/EC.Google Scholar
57 Art. 25 AGG.Google Scholar
58 S.C. 1960, c.44.Google Scholar
59 Act to prevent the Publication of Discriminatory Matter Referring to Race or Creed, S.O. 1944, c. 51.Google Scholar
60 For a first overview of the Canadian federal system see Peter W. Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada 103 (2002 student ed.).Google Scholar
61 Law Society British Columbia v. Andrews (1989) 1 S.C.R. 143, 144.Google Scholar
62 Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11.Google Scholar
63 Canadian Human Rights Act (Act) R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6.Google Scholar
64 Human Rights Code Ontario (Ontario Code) R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19.Google Scholar
65 The scope of industries within federal jurisdiction is defined by the Canada Labour Code R.S.C. 1985, c. L-2, s. 2.Google Scholar
66 Act, s. 11.Google Scholar
67 Employment Standards Act S.O. 2000, c. 41, s. 42.Google Scholar
68 Act, s. 11 paras. 1 - 3.Google Scholar
69 Pay Equity Act R.S.O. 1990, c. P.7.Google Scholar
70 Pay Equity Act, s. 3 para.1.Google Scholar
71 Employment Equity Act S.C. 1995, c. 44.Google Scholar
72 Echlin, Randall Scott/Thomlinson, Christine M., For Better or For Worse – a Practical Guide to Canadian Employment Law 141 (2nd ed. 2004); Carol Agocs, Canada's employment equity legislation and policy, 1987–2000 – The gap between policy and practice, 23 International Journal of Manpower 256 (2002).Google Scholar
73 Employment Equity Act, s. 15.Google Scholar
74 Employment Equity Act, s. 5 para. a.Google Scholar
75 Act, s. 3 para. 1.Google Scholar
76 Ontario Code, s. 5 para. 1, s. 10 para. 2.Google Scholar
77 Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms Quebec R.S.Q., c. C-12, s. 10.Google Scholar
78 See e.g. Human Rights Code Manitoba C.C.S.M., c. H175, s. 9 para. 2j, Human Rights Act Nova Scotia R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 214, s. 5 para. 1t, Human Rights Act Prince Edward Island R.S.P.E.I. 1988, c.H-12, s. 2 para. 1d.Google Scholar
79 See e.g. Human Rights Code British Columbia RSBC 1996, c. 210, s. 11, Human Rights Code Newfoundland and Labrador RSNL 1990, c. H-14, s. 9 para. 1a, Human Rights Act Yukon R.S.Y. 2002, c. 116, s. 7 para. j.Google Scholar
80 Act, s. 7, Ontario Code, s. 9, 23 para. 1.Google Scholar
81 Act, s. 7.Google Scholar
82 Act, s. 8, Ontario Code, s. 23 paras. 2, 3.Google Scholar
83 Act, s. 10.Google Scholar
84 Act, s. 14.1, Ontario Code, s. 8.Google Scholar
85 Act, s. 14 para. 2, Ontario Code, s. 7 para. 2, Ontario Human Rights Commission, publications: Policy on Sexual Harassment & Inappropriate Gender Related Comments & Conduct, available at http://www.ohrc.on.ca/english/publications/sexual-harassment-policy.shtml (visited on 28 August 2006).Google Scholar
86 Canada Labour Code R.S.C. 1985, c. L-2, s. 247.1 until s. 247.4.Google Scholar
87 McAvinn v. Strait Crossing Bridge Ltd. (2002) 41 C.H.R.R. D/388.Google Scholar
88 Haig v. Canada (1991) 16 C.H.R.R. D/224.Google Scholar
89 Haig v. Canada (1992) 16 C.H.R.R. D/226.Google Scholar
90 Act, s. 15 paras. 1, 2, Ontario Code, s. 24 paras. 1, 2.Google Scholar
91 Act, s. 15 paras. 2, 3, Ontario Code, s. 11 paras. 2, 3, see Central Alberta Diary Pool v. Alberta (Human Rights Comission) (1990) 12 C.H.R.R. D/417, Canadian Human Rights Commission, publication: Duty to Accommodate Fact Sheet, available at http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/preventing_discrimination/duty_obligation-en.asp (visited 28 August 2006).Google Scholar
92 British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. B.C.G.E.U. (1999), 176 D.L.R. (4th) 1, see also British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) v. British Columbia (2000), 181 D.L.R. (4th) 385.Google Scholar
93 Black v. Gaines Pet Foods (1993), 28 C.H.R.R. D/256; see also the decision of the Ontario Board of Inquiry ([1992] 17 C.H.R.R. D/150) which was reversed by the Ontario Court of Justice.Google Scholar
94 Bhinder v. Canadian National Railway (1985) 7 C.H.R.R. D/3093. The first decision of the tribunal ([1981] 2 C.H.R.R. D/546) was reversed by the decision of the Federal Court of Canada ([1983] 4 C.H.R.R. D/1404), which was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada.Google Scholar
95 Chambly (Commission scolaire regionale) v. Bergevin (1994) 22 C.H.R.R. D/1 (S.C.C.), see also Toronto District School Board v. Canadian Union of Public Employees (2003) L.V.I. 3371–1.Google Scholar
96 Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Greyhound Lines of Canada Ltd. (1987) 8 C.H.R.R. D/4184.Google Scholar
97 Jardine v. Ottawa-Carleton Regional Transit Commission (1995) C.R.H.D. No. 6.Google Scholar
98 Ontario Code, s. 24 para 1a.Google Scholar
99 Act, s. 16 para. 1, Ontario Code, s. 14 para. 1.Google Scholar
100 Ontario Code s. 24 para. 1.Google Scholar
101 Act, s. 40, Ontario Code s. 32.Google Scholar
102 Ontario Code, s. 34 para. 1d.Google Scholar
103 Act, s. 41 para. 1e.Google Scholar
104 Act, ss. 43–46, Ontario Code, ss. 33–34, see also: Canadian Human Rights Commission, publications: The Complaint Process, available at http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/publications/the_complaint-en.asp; Ontario Human Rights Commission, publications: If you Have a Human Rights Complaint: A Complainant's Guide, available at http://www.ohrc.on.ca/english/publications/complainants-guide.shtml; If you Receive a Human Rights Complaint: A Respondent's Guide, available at http://www.ohrc.on.ca/english/publications/respondents-guide.shtml (visited on 28 August 2006).Google Scholar
105 Act, ss. 47–48, Ontario Code, s. 36–37, see also publications at supra note 96. Take note that there are discussions about strengthening this system at the moment because the complaint process takes a long time and costs much money.Google Scholar
106 S.O. 2000, c. 41.Google Scholar
107 R.S.C. 1985, c. L-2.Google Scholar
108 See Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, Tribunal Rules and Procedures: What Happens Next? A Guide to the Tribunal Process, available at http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/about/download/lay_guide-e.htm (visited on 28 August 2006).Google Scholar
109 Act, s. 53, Ontario Code, s. 41.Google Scholar
110 Act, s. 60, Ontario Code, s. 44.Google Scholar
111 Act, ss. 27 para. 1, 40 para. 1.Google Scholar
112 Ontario Code, s. 32 para. 1.Google Scholar
113 Pay Equity Act, ss. 22–26.Google Scholar
114 Annuß, Georg, Das Allgemeine Gleichbehandlungsgesetz im Arbeitsrecht, Der Betriebs-Berater 1629 (2006).Google Scholar
115 Ulrich Preis in: Erfurter Kommentar zum Arbeitsrecht, § 611 Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch) annotation 334, 341, 342 (Dieterich et al. eds. 2006); Federal Labour Court, Decision of 20 May 1999, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 3653 (1999).Google Scholar
116 But it is stated explicitly in art. 2 para. 1 Directive 76/207/EEC and so in art. 1 para. 1 Directive 2002/73/EC.Google Scholar
117 § 10 sentence 3 no. 6 AGG. See also Gaul, Björn/Naumann, Eva, Entwurf des Allgemeinen Gleichbehandlungsgesetzes, Der Arbeitsrechtsberater 176 (2006), Bauer, Jobst-Hubertus/Thüsing, Gregor/Schunder, Achim, Das Allgemeine Gleichbehandlungsgesetz – Alter Wein in neuen Schläuchen? in: Neue Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht 774 (2006), Annuß, Georg, Das Allgemeine Gleichbehandlungsgesetz im Arbeitsrecht, Der Betriebs-Berater 1629 (2006) who criticise this provision with regard to the exclusion of the AGG from dismissals.Google Scholar
118 Reiner Ascheid in: Erfurter Kommentar zum Arbeitsrecht, § 1 KSchG (Kündigungsschutzgesetz) annotation 188 (Dieterich et al. eds. 2006).Google Scholar
119 European Court of Justice, Decision of 11 July 2006, C-13/05 in: Der Betrieb 1617 (2006). Doubtfully if this clarifies the problem completely: Gregor Thüsing in: Bauer, Jobst-Hubertus/Thüsing, Gregor/Schunder, Achim, Das Allgemeine Gleichbehandlungsgesetz – Alter Wein in neuen Schläuchen? in: Neue Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht 774 (2006).Google Scholar
120 See supra B.Google Scholar
121 See, e.g. Germany § 612 para. 3 Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch).Google Scholar
122 Art. 5 Directive 2000/78/EC.Google Scholar
123 Waddington, Lisa/Gendriks, Aart, The Expanding Concept of Employment Discrimination in Europe: From Direct and Indirect Discrimination To Reasonable Accommodation, 18/3 The International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations, 403 (2003) who even see reasonable accommodation as form of discrimination sui generis.Google Scholar
124 See Art. 7 para. 1 Directive 2000/43/EC, art. 9 para 1 Directive 2000/73/EC, art. 6 para.1 Directive 2002/73/EC.Google Scholar
125 See § 27 para. 1 no. 3 AGG.Google Scholar
126 Art. 8 para. 5 Directive 2000/43/EC, Art. 10 para. 5 Directive 2000/78/EC.Google Scholar
127 § 12 Gesetz über die Angelegenheiten der freiwilligen Gerichtsbarkeit (FGG).Google Scholar
128 Art. 6 para. 2 Directive 2002/73/EC.Google Scholar
129 Jost-Hubertus Bauer in: Jobst-Hubertus Bauer/Gregor Thüsing/Achim Schunder, Das Allgemeine Gleichbehandlungsgesetz – Alter Wein in neuen Schläuchen? in: Neue Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht 774 (2006).Google Scholar
130 See Gregor Thüsing, Following the U.S. Example: European Employment Discrimination Law and the Impact of Council Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC, 19 The international journal of comparative labour law and industrial relations 187 (2003); Bauer, Jobst-Hubertus, Berliner Etikettenschwindel: der neue Gesetzentwurf zur Umsetzung der Europäischen Antidiskriminierungsrichtlinien, Der Betriebs-Berater 61, Heft 20, I (2006), Bauer, Jobst-Hubertus/Thüsing, Gregor/Schunder, Achim, Das Allgemeine Gleichbehandlungsgesetz – Alter Wein in neuen Schläuchen? in: Neue Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht 774 (2006).Google Scholar
You have
Access
