Collective redundancies may not justify dismissal of pregnant worker according to Advocate General

Book your free initial call

    We endeavour to make an initial response to all enquiries within 24 hours but please be aware that on some occasions due to prior commitments or volume of calls we will not be able to respond in that time frame. We also operate a 48 hour return policy. This return policy means that if we have not responded with 48 hours of your initial enquiry we are unable to do so due to current workloads and we will destroy your data accordingly. This policy ensures you are not left waiting and have the certainty that your data is not compromised. In most instances however we are able to make contact within a 24 hour time frame. Please note our free initial advice service is available to clients at our total discretion and if your case is of a complex nature we may not be able to offer you a free consultation. However in these instances we will advise you what the charge would be for an initial fixed fee consultation.
  • (view our privacy statement)
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Normally there is little justification for the dismissal of a pregnant employee. However, under EU law would a collective redundancy be considered an ‘exceptional case’ and therefore allow the dismissal of a pregnant worker?

In Guisado v Bankia SA – Advocate-General Sharpton decided that this would not necessarily be the case. The Advocate General said that there must be no reasonable possibility of reassignment. Under the EU’s Maternity and Collective Redundancies directives, collective redundancies, including dismissal for ‘one or more reasons not related to the individual workers concerned’ would not automatically be an ‘exceptional case’ allowing the dismissal of pregnant workers. Rather, ‘there must be no plausible possibility of reassigning the pregnant worker to another suitable post’. This opinion is not legally binding but the issues of this particular case are to be decided at a later date and will have possible ramifications for the application of regulation 10 MAPLE 1999.

Written by

Lorraine Emery
2nd October 2017