Instantie

Hof van Justitie EG

Samenvatting

Mevrouw Roberts was gedurende 28 jaar werkzaam in het magazijn van T & L
industries en werd op de leeftijd van 53 jaar, samen met andere werknemers
ontslagen in verband met de sluiting van het magazijn. Ze was aangesloten bij
de bedrijfspensioenregeling, die losstond van de wettelijke sociale
zekerheidsregeling. De bedrijfspensioenregeling werd deels gefinancierd door
de werknemers zelf en deels door de werkgever. .

De verplichte pensioneringsdatum voor vrouwen ligt op 60 jaar en die
voor mannen op 65 jaar. Mannen en vrouwen boven de 50 jaar konden, met
toestemming van de werkgever, met pensioen voordat zij die leeftijden bereikt
hebben. In dat geval hebben ze onmiddellijk recht op een verminderd pensioen.
ç

werknemer die gedurende tien jaar bij deze regeling aangesloten is
geweest, kan op elke willekeurig tijdstip gedurende vijf jaar voor het
bereiken van de normale pensioenleeftijd voor pensionering kiezen en ontvangt
dan het tot dat tijdstip opgebouwde pensioen. Er werd een afvloeiingsregeling
overeengekomen die erop neerkwam dat zowel mannen als vrouwen boven de 55 jaar
een onmiddellijk pensioen werd toegekend. Joan Roberts was 53 jaar en vocht de
regeling aan, omdat een mannelijke werknemer nu tien jaar voor de voor mannen
normale pensioenleeftijd recht had op een onmiddellijk ingaand pensioen en een
vrouw slechts vijf jaar voor de voor vrouwen normale pensioenleeftijd.

De lagere rechters wezen de vordering af en het E.A.T. beriep zich
daarbij op de uitzondering van de Sex Discrimination Act op het terrein van de
pensioenen.

Het Londense court of Appeal stelde twee prejudicile vragen:

1. Heeft de werkgever in strijd met de richtlijn gelijke behandeling van
mannen en vrouwen de werkneemster gediscrimineerd door de ontslagen mannelijke
werknemers tien jaar voor hun normale pensioenleeftijd van 65 jaar een
pensioen ten laste van het bedrijfspensioenfonds toe te kennen, terwijl de
ontslagen vrouwelijke werknemers pas vijf jaar voor hun normale
pensioenleeftijd van 60 jaar aanspraak konden maken op pensioen en zowel
mannen als vrouwen in de leeftijd van 55 jaar in aanmerking kwamen voor een
onmiddellijk pensioen?

2. Zo ja, kan verzoekster zich in de omstandigheden van het geval voor
de nationale rechter beroepen op de richtlijn gelijke behandeling, ondanks een
eventuele onverenigbaarheid met de richtlijn van Section 6 (4) van de Sex
discrimination Act 1975?

Het Hof verwees in zijn overwegingen naar het Burton-arrest. In dat
arrest had het Hof al aangegeven dat het begrip ‘ontslag’ in artikel 5 lid 1
van richtlijn 76/207 ruim moet worden opgevat. Het begrip omvat ook een
leeftijdsgrens voor het verplichte vertrek van werknemers in het kader van een
collectief ontslag, ook indien bij dat vertrek een vervroegd rustpensioen
wordt toegekend. Artikel 7 van de Richtlijn 79/7 bevat een
uitzonderingsmogelijkheid met betrekking tot de vaststelling van de
pensioengerechtigde leeftijd en de gevolgen die hieruit kunnen voortvloeien
voor andere prestaties op het gebied van de wettelijke stelsels van sociale
zekerheid. Het Hof overwoog dat hij daarmee erkend had dat bij rpestaties
welke gekoppeld zijn aan nationale pensioenregelingen die verschillende
pensioengerechtigde leeftijden voor mannen vrouwen voorschrijven, van het
gelijkheidsbeginsel kan worden afgeweken. Vervolgens overwoog het Hof dat deze
uitzonderingsmogelijkheid strikt moet worden uitgelegd.

Het Hof verklaarde vervolgens voor recht:

“Artikel 5, lid 1, van richtlijn nr. 76/07 moet aldus worden uitgelegd,
dat een contractuele bepaling waarbij een gelijke leeftijd is vastgesteld voor
het ontslag van mannelijke en vrouwelijke werknemers, in het kader van een
collectief ontslag met toekenning van een vervroegd rustpensioen, zulks
terwijl de normale pensioenleeftijd voor mannen en vrouwen verschillend is,
geen naar gemeenschapsrecht verboden discriminatie op grond van geslacht is.

Volledige tekst

1 By an order of 12 March 1984, which was received at the Court on 19
June 1984, the court of Appeal of England and Wales referred to the Court for
a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty two questions on the
interpretation of Council Directive No 76/207 EEF of February 1976 on the
implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as
regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working
conditions (Official Journal 1976, 39, p. 40).

2 The questions were raised in the course of proceedings between Joan
Roberts (herinafter referred to as ‘the appelland’) and Tate & Lyle Industries
Limited, preciously Tate & Lyle Food and Distribution Limited, (herinafter
referred to as ‘the respondents’) concerning the question whether the
appellant’s dismissal was in accordance with section 6 (4) of the Sex
Discrimination Act 1975 and with Community law.

3 The appellant was employed by the respondents at their Liverpool depot
for 28 years and, at the age of 53, was made redundant on 22 April 1981,
following the closure of the depot, together with other employees, under a
mass redundancy.

4 The appellant was a member of an occupational pension scheme, which
had been created in 1978 by the respondents for their employees and which was
contracted out of the State retirement pension scheme. That scheme is funded
partly by the respondents themselves and partly by voluntary contributions by
employees. It provides for compulsory retirement with a pension at the age of
65 for men and 60 for women. Nevertheless, men and women over the age of 50
may, with the respondents’ consent, retire before attaining the aforementioned
normal retirement age, in which case they are entitled to a reduced pension
immediately. An employee who has been a member of the scheme for 10 years may
choose to retire at any time up to five years before the normal retirement age
and receive the pension earned up to that date.

5 On the closure of the Liverpool depot the respondents agreed severance
terms with the trade union of which the appellant was a member. Under those
terms all employees made redundant were to be offered either a cash payment of
an early pension out of the pension scheme up to five years before the date of
their entitlement under the scheme. The pension was therefore payable
immediately to women over the age of 55 and men over the age of 60.
Nevertheless, as a result of representations made by male employees against
the allegedly discriminatory nature of those arrangements with regard to men
aged between 55 and 60, the respondents amended them by agreeing to grant an
immediate pension to both men and women over the age of 55, with the amount of
their cash payment reduced.

6 The appellant, who was aged 53 at the date of redundancy, brought
proceedings against the respondents before an Industrial Tribunal, claiming
that her dismissal constituted unlawful discrimination contrary to the Sex
Discrimination Act and to Community law, since under the new arrangements, a
male employee was entitled to receive an immediate pension 10 years before the
normal retirement age for men wheras a female employee was not so entitled
until five years before the normal retirement age for women.

7 After her case was dismissed by the Industrial Tribunal she appealed
to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, which held that, even if it was assumed
that the appellant had been treated in a discriminatory manner, the
respondents had not acted unlawfully since, in the first place, section 6 (4)
of the Sex Discrimination Act provided that the provisions of the Act
concerning the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sex did not apply
to ‘provision in relation to death or retirement’, and, in the second place,
Directive no 76/207 was not directly applicable before the courts of the
United Kingdom.

8 The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal which decided to refer
the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

‘(1) Whether or not the respondents discriminated against the appellant
contrary to the Equal Treatment Directive by arranging for male employees who
were made redundant to receive a pension from the occupational pension fund 10
years prior to their normal retirement age of 65 but arranging for female
employees (such as the appellant) who were made redundant to receive a pension
only five years prior to their normal retirement age of 60, thereby arranging
for both men and women to receive an immediate pension at the age of 55.

(2) If the answer to (1) above is in the affirmative, whether or not the
Equal Treatment Directive can be relied upon by the appellant in the
circumstances of the present case in national courts and tribunals
notwithstanding the inconsistency (if any) between the directive and section 6
(4) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.’

Relevant legal provisions

9 Article 1 (1) of Directive No 76/207 provides as follows:

‘The purpose of this directive is to put into effect in the Member
States the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to
employment, including promotion, and vocational training and as regards
working conditions and, on the conditions referred to in paragraph (2), social
security. This principle is hereinafter referred to as “the principle of equal
treatment”.

10 Article 2 (1) of the directive provides that:

‘…the principle of equal treatment shall mean that there shall be no
discrimination whatsoever on grounds of sex either directly or indirectly by
reference in particular to marital or family status’.

11 Article 5 (1) of the directive provides that:

‘Application of the principle of equal treatment with regard to working
conditions, including the conditions governing dismissal, means that men and
women shall be guaranteed the same conditions without discrimination on
grounds of sex.’

12 Article 1 (2) of the directive provides that:

‘With a view to ensuring the progressive emplementation of the principle
of equal treatment in matters of social security, the Council, acting on a
proposal from the Commission, will adopt provisions defining its substance,
its scope and the arrangements for its application.’

13 Pursuant to the last-mentioned provisions, the Council adopted
Directive No 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of
the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social
security (Official Journal 1979, L 6, p. 24) which Member States were to
transpose into national law, according to Article 8 (1) thereof, within six
years of its notification. The directive applies, according to Article 3 (1)
thereof, to:

‘(a) statutory schemes which provide protection against the following
risks:

sickness

invalidity

old age

accidents at work and occupational diseases,

unemployment;

(b) social assistance, in so far as it is intended to supplement or
replace the schemes to in (a).’

14 According to Article 7 (1) thereof, the directive is to be:

‘without prejudice to the right of Member States to exclude from its
scope:

(a) the determination of pensionable age for the purpose of granting
old-age and retirement pensions and the possible consequences thereof for
other benefits; ……’

15 With regard to occupational social security schemes, Article 3 (3) of
the directive provides that with a view to ensuring implementations of the
principle of equal treatment in such schemes ‘the Council, acting on a
proposal from the Commission, will adopt provisions defining ist substance,
its scope and the arrangements for its application’. On 5 May 1983 the
Commission submitted to the Council a proposal for a directive on the
implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in
occupational social security schemes (Official Journal 1983, C 134, p. 7). The
proposed directive would, according to Article 2 (1) thereof, apply to
‘benefits intended to supplement the benefits provided by statutory social
security schemes or to replace them’. The Council has not yet responded to
that proposal.

16 The minimum qualifying age for a State retirement pension under
United Kingdom legislation is 60 for women and 65 for men.

17 Observations were submitted to the Court by the United Kingdom, the
Kingdom of Denmark and the Commission, in addition to the appellant and the
respondents.

The first question

18 By the first question the Court of Appeal seeks to ascertain whether
Aricle 5 (1) of Directive No 76/207 must be interpreted as meaning that a
contractual provision which lays down a single age for the dismissal of both
men and women under a mass redundancy involving the grant of an early
retirement pension, whereas the normal retirement age is different for men and
women, namely 65 for the former and 60 for the latter, constitutes
discrimination on grounds of sex contrary to that directive.

19 The appellant considers that the question must be answered in the
affirmative.

20 According to her the question falls to be considered, by virtue of
the Court’s judgment of 16 February 1982 (Case 19/81 Burton v British Railways
Board [1982] ECR 555), under Directive No 76/207. The terms ‘working
conditions’ and ‘conditions governing dismissal’ contained in that directive
also encompass the grant of an early retirement pension under a mass
redundancy.

21 The appellant claims that she suffered discrimination as a result of
the respondents’ failure to take into account the fact that its normal
retirement scheme it linked to the State retirement scheme, with provides for
a different normal retirement age for men and women. Although the first
variation of the respondents’ scheme adopted that age difference in respect of
access to early retirement, in accordance with the principle stated by the
court in het Burton case, those principles were not taken account of in the
second variation.

22 The appellant claims that she is entitled, according to the judgment
in the Burton case, to compare her treatment with that of a male employee who
is an equal number of years away from the normal retirement age. A scheme
which applies an age differential with regard to the retirement of men and of
women, and which departs from that differential in the case of a mass
redundancy in a manner less favourable to woman than to men, gives rise to
discrimination on grounds of sex, contrary to the provisions of the
directive.

23 In contrast, the respondents argue first of all that it is
unnecessary to reply to the first question in view of the fact that they
propose that the reply to the second question should be in the negative.

24 They contend that they did not, in any event, discriminate against
the appellant, because men and women of the same age (55) are treated in an
identical manner.

25 According to the respondents, a woman cannot demand to be treated
differently in all cases for the sole reason that there is a difference in
treatment with regard to the normal retirement age applied by the employer
under its occupational social security scheme. On the contrary, such a
difference of treatment should not be reflected in other matters prior to the
normal date of retirement.

26 The fact that the court held in its judgment in the Burton case that
a difference in the age which men and women must have attained for access to
voluntary retirement cannot be regarded as discrimination does not mean,
according to the respondents, that identical age conditions are neccessarily
discriminatory. In any event, the treatment applied in this case is justified
objectively by the need to ensure that all employees who are dismissed and are
over the age of 55 receive a pension.

27 The United Kingdom is also of the opinion that there is no
discrimination, either direct or indirect, in this case. It considers that the
normal way to ensure equality of treatment is to base the right to benefits
linked to employment on the same age requirement for men and women and that
the Burton judgment is not relevant to this case.

28 The Commission also maintains that there is no discrimination in this
case and that the reply to the question is to be found in Article 5 of the
Directive No 76/207 and in an analysis of the Court’s judgment in the Burton
case. In that judgment the Court recognized the existance of a link between
access to voluntary redundancy and national social security schemes.

29 According to the Commission, Article 7 (1) of Directive No 79/7 does
not aim to entrench the difference between the pensionable ages for men and
women but merely creates an exception in a case where national law provides
for such a difference. In the absence of a provision to that effect national
provisions imposing such a difference might be incompatible with the
directive. The position might be the same with regard to Article 9 (1) (a) of
the proposed directive concerning ocupational social security schemes.

30 The Court observes in the first place that the question of
intepretation which has been referred to it does not concern the conditions
for the grant of the normal old-age or retirement pension but the termination
of employment in connection with a mass redundancy caused by the closure of
part of an undertaking’s plant. The question therefore concerns the conditions
governing dismissal and falls to be considered under Directive No 76/207.

31 Article 5 (1) of Directive 76/207 provides that application of the
principle of equal treatment with regard to working conditions, including the
conditions governing dismissal, means that men and women are to be guaranteed
the same conditions without discrimination on grounds of sex.

32 In its judgment in the Burton case the Court has already stated that
the term ‘dismissal’ contained in that provision must be given a wide meaning.
Consequently, an age limit for the compulsory redundancy of workers as part of
a mass redundancy of workers as part of a mass redundancy falls within the
term ‘dismissal’ construed in that manner, even if the redundancy involves the
grant of an early retirement pension.

33 Even though the retirement scheme at issue does not prima facie
discriminate between men and women with regard to the conditions for
dismissal, it is still necessary to consider whether the fixing of the same
sum for the grant of an early pension nevertheless constitutes discrimination
on grounds of sex in view of the fact that under the United Kingdom statutory
social security scheme the pensionable age for men and women is different.
Under United Kingdom legislation the minimum qualifying age for a State
retirement pension is 60 for women and 65 for men.

34 As the court emphasized in its jugment in the Burton case, Article 7
of Directive No 79/7 expressly provides that the directive does not prejudice
the right of Member States to exclude from its scope the determination of
pensionable age for the purpose of granting old-age and retirement pensions
and the possible consequences thereof for other benefits falling within the
statutory social security schemes. The Court thus acknowledged that benefits
linked to a national scheme which lays down a different minimum pensionable
age for men and women may lie outside the ambit of the aforementioned
obligation.

35 However, in view of the fundamental importance of the principle of
equality of treatment, which the Court has reaffirmed on numerous occasions,
Article 1 (2) of Directive No 76/207, which excludes social security matters
from the scope of that directive, must be interpreted strictly. Consequently,
the exception to the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sex provided
for in Article 7 (1) (a) of Directive No 79/7 applies only to the
determination of pensionable age for the purpose of granting old-age and
retirement pensions and to the conseuences thereof for other social security
benefits.

36 In that respect it must be emphasized that, whereas the exception
contained in Article 7 of Directive No 79/7 concerns the consequences which
pensionable age has for social security benefits, this case is concerned with
dismissal within the meaning of Article 5 of Directive No 76/207. In those
circumstances the grant of a pension to persons of the same age who are made
redundant amounts merely to a collective measure adopted irrespective of the
sex of those persons in order to guarantee them all the same rights.

37 Consequently, the answer to the first question referred to the Court
of Appeal must be that Article 5 (1) of Directive No 76/207 must be
interpreted as meaning that a contractual provision which lays down a single
age for the dismissal of men and women under a mass redundancy involving the
grant of an early retirement pension, whereas the normal retirement age is
different for men and women, does not constitute discrimination on grounds of
sex, contrary to Community law.

The second question

38 Since the second question is contigent upon the reply to the first
question being in the affirmative, it is not necessary to give a reply to it.

Costs

39 The costs incurred by Denmark, the United Kingdom and the Commission
of the European Communities, which have submitted observations to the Court,
are not recoverable. As these proceedings are, in so far as the parties to the
main proceedings are concerned, in the nature of a step in the action before
the national court, the decision as to costs is a matter for that court.

On those grounds,

THE COURT

in answer to the questions referred to it by the Court of Appeal by an
order of 12 March 1984, herby rules:

Article 5 (1) of Directive No 76/207 must be interpreted as meaning that
a contractual provision which lays down a single age for the dismissal of men
and women under a mass redundancy involving the grant of an early retirement
pension, whereas the normal retirement age is different for men and women,
does not constitute discrimination on grounds of sex, contrary to Community
law.

Rechters

Mackenzie Stuart; Everling; Bahlmann; Bosco; Koopmans; Due; O’Higgins