Skip to main content
  • 2332 Accesses

Abstract

Age discrimination has increased significantly in light of the aging population in many countries. When individuals or groups are treated differently on grounds of age it is often based on generalized assumptions or on the fact that competing age groups presume they gain an advantage from excluding other groups. Use of age as a representative for other characteristics may serve economic objectives but nevertheless is questionable from a human rights perspective. Economic efficiency does not always demand use of such a representative. The countries surveyed in this report, in general, prohibit age discrimination by statute. The countries define protected age groups differently. Those in employment relationships are typically the protected group. For most countries, direct or indirect differentiation based on age is the forbidden type of discrimination. Exemptions from the prohibition on age discrimination are widespread. A variety of enforcement mechanisms exist. States provide a broad array of sanctions, including criminal sanctions, administrative fees, civil law types of remedies, and some form of damages compensating for injury.

III.C., L’interdiction de la discrimination à cause de l’âge dans les relations du travail.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Compare: Report on Canada: A. Introduction; Hessel, Roger, “Aktives Altern in einer alternden Gesellschaft: Weiterbildung in jedem Alter,” Europäische Zeitschrift für Berufsbildung 45 (2008/3): 157; IAB (Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung) Kurzbericht 16/2009; Fujimoto, Makoto, “Employment of Older People After the Amendment of the Act Concerning Stabilization of Employment of Older Persons,” Japan Labour Review 5 (2008): 59, reference 1.

  2. 2.

    Sargeant, Malcolm, “Age Discrimination,” in The Law on Age Discrimination in the EU ed. Sargeant, M., 5 (Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International, 2008), chapter 1.

  3. 3.

    See: M’Nhongo, Tavengwa, Age Discrimination in Africa, International Federation on Ageing Conference (Copenhagen, 2006), Seminar 1.

  4. 4.

    Meenan, Helen, “Age Discrimination on the EU and the Framework Directive,” in The Law on Age Discrimination in the EU, ed. Sargeant, M. 11 (Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International, 2008), chapter 2.

  5. 5.

    For an example from Japan, see: Sakuraba, Ryoko, “The Amendment of the Employment Measure Act: Japanese Anti-Age Discrimination Law,” Japan Labour Review 6 (2009); 56, 60, 65.

  6. 6.

    Friedman, Milton, Capitalism and Freedom (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962), 113.

  7. 7.

    Becker, Garry S., The Economics of Discrimination, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973).

  8. 8.

    Phelps, Edmund S., “The Statistical Theory of Racism and Sexism,” American Economic Review 62 (1972): 659.

  9. 9.

    Richard Allen Epstein, Forbidden Grounds (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992) 91.

  10. 10.

    See: M’Nhongo, Tavengwa, Age Discrimination in Africa, International Federation on Ageing Conference (Copenhagen, 2006), Seminar 1.

  11. 11.

    Hoffman, Eileen B., “Working Effectively Across the Generations,” Perspectives on Work (Magazine of LERA) 13, no. 2 (winter 2010): 29.

  12. 12.

    Engert, Andreas, “Allied by Surprise? The Economic Case for an Anti-discrimination Statute,” German Law Journal 4 (2003): p. 685 et sequ.

  13. 13.

    O’Cinneide, Colm, Age Discrimination and European Law (Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2005), 5, 10, 14.

  14. 14.

    Report on Macao, reference 6, indicating that in Macao 62% of employed persons had an education below junior school level (age dependent).

  15. 15.

    Wood, Geoffrey/Wilkinson, Adrian/Harcourt, Mark, “Age Discrimination and Working Life: Perspectives and Contestations – A Review of the Contemporary Literature,” International Journal of Management Reviews 10, no. 4 (2008): 425.

  16. 16.

    Darity, William, “The Functionality of Market-Based Discrimination,” International Journal of Social Economics 28 (2008): 980.

  17. 17.

    O’Cinneide, Colm, Age Discrimination and European Law (Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2005), 11.

  18. 18.

    Sargeant, Malcolm, United Kingdom, in The Law on Age Discrimination in the EU, ed. Sargeant, M. 213 (Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International2008), chapter 10.

  19. 19.

    Of the resulting National Reports 23 are published below.

  20. 20.

    Report on Macao, following reference 11; Report on Argentina, question 1; Report on Uruguay, question 1; Report on Poland, question 1; Report on Czechia, question 1.

  21. 21.

    For a different perception compare: Report of New Zealand, reference 3.

  22. 22.

    Report on Portugal, reference 13; Rapport de la Belgique, reference 6, 7.

  23. 23.

    Report on Macao, reference 9; Report on Japan, chapter C.II.; Report on Ireland, question 1; Report on Romania, question 1; Rapport de la Belgique, chapter A.I.; Report on Slovenia, question1; Report on Italy, question 1; Report on Poland, question 1.

  24. 24.

    Report on Canada, chapter B.; Report on Japan, chapter C.II.; Report on Argentina, question 1; Report on Venezuela, question 1; Report on Norway, question 1; Report on Portugal, question 1; Report on Croatia, question 1.

  25. 25.

    Report on Canada, chapter B., reference 15.

  26. 26.

    Report on the US, reference 1–6; Report on Australia, question 1; Report on Argentina, question 1; Report on the Netherlands, question 1; Report on Ireland, question 1; Report on Norway, question 1; Report on Slovenia, question 1.

  27. 27.

    Report on Canada, chapter C., reference 32.

  28. 28.

    Report on Ireland, question 1; Report on Romania, question 1; Report on Portugal, question 4.

  29. 29.

    Report on Macao, reference 10–11; Report on Romania, question 1; Report on Portugal, question 1; Report on Italy, question 1; Report on Sweden, question 1; Report on Poland, question 1; Report on Croatia, question 1.

  30. 30.

    Report on the Netherlands, question 1.

  31. 31.

    Report on the US, prior to reference 8; Report on Australia, question 1.

  32. 32.

    Report on Japan, chapter J.I.3.

  33. 33.

    Report on New Zealand, reference 4; Report on Australia, question 1; Report on the Netherlands, question 1.

  34. 34.

    Report on Japan, chapter J.I.2.

  35. 35.

    Report on New Zealand, reference 6.

  36. 36.

    Report on Australia, question 1.

  37. 37.

    Report on Australia, introduction.

  38. 38.

    Report on Argentina, question 17; Report on Norway, question 1, 18; Report on Portugal, question 17.

  39. 39.

    Report on Japan, chapter B.I., reference 4; Report on Portugal, question 2; Report on Poland, question 2.

  40. 40.

    Report on the US, reference 71.

  41. 41.

    Report on the US, reference 215–218.

  42. 42.

    Report on Canada, chapter C.II., reference 53.

  43. 43.

    Report on Canada, chapter D.

  44. 44.

    Report on New Zealand, reference 7.

  45. 45.

    Report on Macao, reference 13; Report on Japan, chapter B.II.4.; Report on Argentina, question 3; Report on Ireland, question 2; Report on Romania, question 2; Report on Norway, question 3; Report on Portugal, question 2; Rapport de la Belgique, chapter A.VI.; Report on Slovenia, question 2, 3; Report on Italy, question 1, 9; Report on Czechia, question 5.

  46. 46.

    Report on Canada, chapter D., reference 88; Report on Portugal, question 2; Report on Italy, question 15.

  47. 47.

    Report on Canada, chapter D., reference 89; for a comparable problem concerning discrimination of students: Report on Norway, question 20.

  48. 48.

    Report on the Netherlands, question 2; Report on Norway, question 2.

  49. 49.

    Report on Czechia, question 18.

  50. 50.

    Report on Sweden, question 18.

  51. 51.

    Report on Japan, chapter J.II.; Report on Venezuela, question 18; Report on the Netherlands, question 18; Report on Norway, question 4, 18.

  52. 52.

    Report on the US, following reference 35. Report on Croatia, question 18.

  53. 53.

    Report on Croatia, question 18.

  54. 54.

    Report on Uruguay, question 2.

  55. 55.

    Report on Ireland, question 2.

  56. 56.

    Report on the Netherlands, question 18.

  57. 57.

    Report on Canada, chapter B., reference 18, 21–23.

  58. 58.

    Report on the US, reference 88; Report on New Zealand, reference 8; Report on Australia, question 18.

  59. 59.

    Report on Canada, chapter C.II., reference 59–61.

  60. 60.

    Report on Slovenia, question 18.

  61. 61.

    Report on Australia, reference 7.

  62. 62.

    Report on Canada, chapter C.II., reference 63; Report on Japan, chapter E.II; Report on Portugal, question 18 (public administration); Report on Poland, question 18; Report on Croatia, question 18.

  63. 63.

    Report on Norway, question 18.

  64. 64.

    Report on Italy, question 18 (for the public sector).

  65. 65.

    Report on Romania, question 18; Report on Norway, question 18.

  66. 66.

    Report on Portugal, question 18.

  67. 67.

    Compare: European Court of Justice, March 5, 2009, C-388/07 (Age Concern England).

  68. 68.

    For a different approach: Report on Japan, chapter E.I.

  69. 69.

    Report on Italy, question 18 (private sector).

  70. 70.

    Report on Sweden, question 18.

  71. 71.

    Report on the Netherlands, question 18.

  72. 72.

    Report on Ireland, question 1; Report on Romania, question 3.

  73. 73.

    For a survey conducted by the Japan Institute for Labour Policy and Training see: Fujimoto, Makoto, “Employment of older people after the ammendment of the Act concerning stabilization of employment of older persons,” Japan Labour Review 5 (2008):59, 85 f.

  74. 74.

    Report on the US, reference 3; Report on New Zealand, reference 13; Report on Japan, chapter B.II.1.; Report on Argentina, question 5; Report on Uruguay, question 5; Report on the Netherlands, question 4; Report on Ireland, question 5; Report on the Netherlands, question 4; Report on Romania, question 5; Rapport de la Belgique, chapter A.II.1.; Report on Slovenia, question 4; Report on Czechia, question 4.

  75. 75.

    Report on New Zealand, reference 13.

  76. 76.

    Report on Macao, reference 16.

  77. 77.

    Report on New Zealand, reference 14, 63; Report on Ireland, question 5.

  78. 78.

    Report on New Zealand, reference 59; Report on Ireland, question 5.

  79. 79.

    Report on Australia, question 4; Report on Ireland, question 5; Report on Sweden, question 4.

  80. 80.

    Report on Ireland, question 5; Report on Portugal, question 5; Report on Croatia, question 5.

  81. 81.

    Report on Australia, question 5; Report in Argentina, question 5.

  82. 82.

    Directive 2000/78/EC, art. 3 para. 1(a); Report on the Netherlands, question 4, 5; Report on Norway, question 4 (no Member State to the EU); Report on Slovenia, question 4; Report on Italy, question 4, 5; Report on Sweden, question 4, 5; Report on Poland, question 4, 5; Report on Czechia, question 5.

  83. 83.

    For a more inclusive concept see Report on Australia, question 5.

  84. 84.

    Report on Canada, chapter C.II., before reference 49; Report on New Zealand, reference 18; Report on Japan, chapter B.II.3.; Report on Portugal, question 1; Report on Coratia, question 4.

  85. 85.

    Report on Argentina, question 4.

  86. 86.

    Report on Canada, chapter C.II., following reference 64; Report on Australia, question 5; Report on Macao, reference 17; Report on Norway, question 5.

  87. 87.

    Directive 2000/78/EC, art. 3 para 3.

  88. 88.

    Report on Australia, question 4; Report on Ireland, question 4; Report on Croatia, question 8; Report on Greece, question 4.

  89. 89.

    Report on New Zealand, reference 22; Report on Ireland, question 4; Report on Greece, question 4.

  90. 90.

    Report on Japan, chapter H.

  91. 91.

    Report on the US, reference 72–74.

  92. 92.

    Compare also Report on New Zealand, reference 72.

  93. 93.

    Report on New Zealand, reference 80; Report on Australia, question 6.

  94. 94.

    Directive 2000/78/EC, art. 2; Report on the Netherlands, question 6; Report on Ireland, question 6; Report on Romania, question 6; Report on Portugal, question 6; Rapport de la Belgique, chapter A.III.; Report on Slovenia, question 6; Report on Italy, question 6; Report on Sweden, question 6; Report on Poland, question 6; Report on Czechia, question 6.

  95. 95.

    Report on the US, reference 232–234; Report on Uruguay, question 6.

  96. 96.

    Report on Australia, question 6; Report on Argentina, question 6.

  97. 97.

    Report on Canada, chapter C.I.

  98. 98.

    Directive 2000/78/EC, art. 2 para. 1 for Europe; Report on Australia, question 6.

  99. 99.

    Report on the US, reference 233.

  100. 100.

    Report on New Zealand, reference 73.

  101. 101.

    Report on Canada, chapter C.I., reference 35.

  102. 102.

    No such approach is applied in Macao and Japan: Report on Macao, previous to reference 20; Report on Japan, chapter B.II.2.

  103. 103.

    Report on the US, reference 235 showing that it took some time before such disparate impact theory was acknowledged also under the ADEA. Report on New Zealand, reference 74; Report on Australia, question 6; Report on Ireland, question 6, Report on Portugal, question 6; Report on Canada, chapter C.I., reference 37; Report on New Zealand, reference 77; Report on the Netherlands, question 6; Report on Ireland, question 6.

  104. 104.

    Report on Canada, chapter C.I, reference 37; Report on New Zealand, reference 77; Report on the Netherlands, question 6; Report on Ireland, question 6.

  105. 105.

    Report on Australia, question 6.

  106. 106.

    Report on the US, reference 254.

  107. 107.

    Report on Canada, chapter C.I., reference 39; Report on the Netherlands, question 6.

  108. 108.

    Report on Canada, chapter C.I., reference 43.

  109. 109.

    Directive 2000/78/EC, art. 2 para. 2 (b) (i).

  110. 110.

    Report on the US, reference 78; Report on New Zealand, reference 49–53; Report on the Netherlands, question 7; Report on Ireland, question 7; Report on Romania, question 7; Report on Norway, question 7; Rapport de la Belgique, chapter A.IV.; Report on Slovenia, question 7; Report on Italy, question 7; Report on Sweden, question 7; Report on Poland, question 7; Report on Croatia, question 7; Report on Greece, question 7.

  111. 111.

    Report on Ireland, question 7.

  112. 112.

    Report on New Zealand, reference 38, 39.

  113. 113.

    Compare: Report on Portugal, question 7; no such approach is applied in Macao: Report on Macao, previous to reference 19.

  114. 114.

    Report on Canada, chapter C.II., reference 50; Report on the US, reference 78.

  115. 115.

    Report on Japan, chapter G.

  116. 116.

    Directive 2000/78/EC art. 2 para. 4; Report on Slovenia, question 6; Report on Poland, question 6; Report on Ireland, question 6.

  117. 117.

    Report on Ireland, question 6.

  118. 118.

    European Court of Justice, July 17, 2008, C-303/06 (Coleman).

  119. 119.

    Rapport de la Belgique, reference 15.

  120. 120.

    European Court of Justice, July 10, 2008, C-54/07 (Feryn).

  121. 121.

    Report on the US, reference 234.

  122. 122.

    Directive 2000/78/EC, art. 11; Report on New Zealand, reference 38, 39.

  123. 123.

    Report on Italy, question 6.

  124. 124.

    Directive 2000/78/EC, art. 3 para. 4 for the European Union; Report on Ireland, question 8; Report on Norway, question 18; Report on Italy, question 4; Report on Sweden, question 4; Report on Poland, question 8; Report on Czechia, question 15; Report on Greece, question 8.

  125. 125.

    Report on New Zealand, reference 97.

  126. 126.

    Report on New Zealand, reference 99; Report on Australia, question 9 (construed as a justification).

  127. 127.

    Report on Australia, question 8.

  128. 128.

    Report on Japan, chapter B.II.1.; Report on Uruguay, question 9; Report on Sweden, question 8, 4, Report on Czechia, question 15.

  129. 129.

    Report on Greece, question 8.

  130. 130.

    Report on Italy, question 4.

  131. 131.

    Report on the Netherlands, question 17; Report on Norway, question 18.

  132. 132.

    Report on Canada, chapter B., reference 15; Report on New Zealand, reference 9; Report on Australia, question 9; Report on the Netherlands, question 8; Report on Ireland, question 3; Report on Romania, question 8; Report on Portugal, question 8; Rapport de la Belgique, chapter A.V.3; Report on Slovenia, question 3; Report on Poland, question 8; Report on Croatia, question 3, question 8.

  133. 133.

    Report on Australia, question 8; Report on Japan, chapter B.II.4.; Report on the Netherlands, question 8; Report on Romania, question 2; Report on Italy, question 15.

  134. 134.

    Report on Australia, question 9.

  135. 135.

    Report on New Zealand, reference 12; Report on Australia, question 8.

  136. 136.

    Report on Canada, chapter C.IV., reference 83; Report on Japan, chapter C.I.; Report on Portugal, question 16.

  137. 137.

    European Court of Justice, October 3, 2006, C-17/05 (Cadman).

  138. 138.

    Report on Japan, chapter C.II.; Report on the Netherlands, question 6.

  139. 139.

    Directive 2000/78/EC, art. 6.

  140. 140.

    Report on Portugal, question 3; Report on Italy, question 9.

  141. 141.

    Report on Portugal, question 15, 16; Report on Italy, question 15.

  142. 142.

    Report on Australia, question 9.

  143. 143.

    Report on Japan, chapter C.IV.

  144. 144.

    Report on Romania, question 3, 8.

  145. 145.

    Report on Portugal, question 3, 9.

  146. 146.

    Report on Ireland, question 8; Report on Croatia, question 9; Report on Greece, question 9.

  147. 147.

    Report on Japan, question 8.

  148. 148.

    Report on Portugal, question 3; Report on Italy, question 9.

  149. 149.

    Rapport de la Belgique, reference 21.

  150. 150.

    Report on the US, reference 255; Report on the Netherlands, question 6; Report on Ireland, question 9; Report on Norway, question 8; Report on Italy, question 9.

  151. 151.

    Directive 2000/78/EC, art. 4 para. 1, for the European Union; Report on Ireland, question 8, Report on Romania, question 9, Report on Norway, question 8; Report on Portugal, question 8, Rapport de la Belgique, chapter A.V.1.; Report on Slovenia, question 9, Report on Italy, question 9; Report on Poland, question 8.

  152. 152.

    Report on Canada, chapter C.I., reference 39; Report on the US, reference 80; Report on New Zealand, reference 100; Report on Australia, question 9; Report on Macao, previous to reference 19; Report on Croatia, question 8.

  153. 153.

    Report on the US, reference 80.

  154. 154.

    Report on the US, reference 81.

  155. 155.

    Report on the US, reference 87.

  156. 156.

    Report on the US, reference 86.

  157. 157.

    Report on the US, reference 90–92.

  158. 158.

    Report on Australia, question 10; Report on Macao, reference 23; Report on Romania, question 10; Rapport de la Belgique, chapter A.VII.2; Report on Slovenia, question 10; Report on Poland, question 10; Report on Croatia, question 12.

  159. 159.

    Report on Portugal, question 10; Report on Slovenia, question 10; Report on Czechia, question 10; Report on Greece, question 10.

  160. 160.

    Report on the Netherlands, question 14; Report on Norway, question 10; Report on Portugal, question 10; Report on Sweden, question 10; Report on Autralia, question 10.

  161. 161.

    Report on Autralia, question 10.

  162. 162.

    Report on Argentina, question 10; Report on the Netherlands, question 10; Report on Sweden, question 10; Report on Croatia, question 10.

  163. 163.

    Report on Sweden, question 10.

  164. 164.

    Report on New Zealand, reference 121.

  165. 165.

    Report on New Zealand, following reference 121; Report Australia, question 10; Report on the Netherlands, question 12, 13.

  166. 166.

    Report on the Netherlands, question 10; Report on Portugal, question 10; Rapport de la Belgique, chapter A.VII.1.a); Report on Slovenia, question 10 (= termination of the contract); Report on Italy, question 10.

  167. 167.

    Rapport de la Belgique, chapter A.VII.1.a); Report on Poland, question 10; Report on Croatia, question 10.

  168. 168.

    Report on the US, reference 99.

  169. 169.

    Rapport de la Belgique, chapter A.VII.1.a); Report on Slovenia, question 10; Report on Italy, question 10; Report on Uruguay, question 10; Report on Portugal, question 10.

  170. 170.

    Report on Uruguay, question 10; Report on Portugal, question 10.

  171. 171.

    Report on Romania, question 10, Report on Norway, question 10.

  172. 172.

    Report on Japan, chapter B.III.2.a); Report on the Netherlands, question 15; Rapport de la Belgique, chapter B.I.

  173. 173.

    Report on the Netherlands, question 12; Report on Ireland, question 10; Report on Italy, question 10; Report on Poland, question 10; Report on Greece, question 17.

  174. 174.

    Report on Argentina, question 10.

  175. 175.

    Report on Uruguay, question 10; Report on Portugal, question 10.

  176. 176.

    Report on Poland, question 10.

  177. 177.

    Report on New Zealand, reference 128, 129; Report on Australia, question 11; Report on Macao, reference 25; Report on Japan, chapter B.III.2.a).; Report on Argentina, question 11; Report on Uruguay, question 11; Report on Venezuela, question 11; Report on Romania, question 11; Report on Norway, question 11; Report on Portugal, question 11; Report on Sweden, question 11.

  178. 178.

    Rapport de la Belgique, chapter A.VIII.1.

  179. 179.

    Report on Argentina, question 11; Report on Ireland, question 11; Report on Italy, question 11.

  180. 180.

    Report on Canada, reference 39.

  181. 181.

    Report on Canada, reference 40.

  182. 182.

    Report on Canada, reference 42.

  183. 183.

    Report on Canada, reference 45.

  184. 184.

    Report on the US, reference 261.

  185. 185.

    Report on the US, reference 263.

  186. 186.

    Report on the US, reference 274.

  187. 187.

    Report on New Zealand, reference 132.

  188. 188.

    Report on Australia, question 11.

  189. 189.

    Report on Macao, reference 26.

  190. 190.

    Report on Macao, reference 26, 27.

  191. 191.

    Report on Ireland, question 12 and 20; Report on Italy, question 12.

  192. 192.

    Report on Macao, final page.

  193. 193.

    Report on Romania, question 14; Report on Poland, question 14; Report on Croatia, question 14; Report on Greece, question 14.

  194. 194.

    Report on Sweden, question 14; Report on Czechia, question 14.

  195. 195.

    Report on New Zealand following reference 140; Report on the Netherlands, question 12; Report on Ireland, question 13; Report on Norway, question 13.

  196. 196.

    Report on Macao, previous to reference 29; Report on Japan, chapter E.III.3.a).

  197. 197.

    Report on Canada, chapter C.III.; Report on Australia, question 13; Report on Argentina, question 13; Report on Ireland, question 13; Report on Romania, question 13; Rapport de la Belgique, chapter A.IX.; Report on Slovenia, question 13; Report on Sweden, question 13 (“Equality Ombudsman”); Report on Croatia, question 13.

  198. 198.

    Report on the US, reference 95.

  199. 199.

    Report on Canada, reference 70; Report on the Netherlands, question 13; Report on Sweden, question 13.

  200. 200.

    Report on the US, reference 97.

  201. 201.

    Report on the US, reference 97.

  202. 202.

    Report on Canada, reference 73.

  203. 203.

    Report on the Netherlands, question 13; Report on Romania, question 10; Report on Norway, question 12.

  204. 204.

    Report on the Netherlands, question 12; Report on Norway, question 12; Report on Slovenia, question 13.

  205. 205.

    Report on Italy, question 12.

  206. 206.

    Report on Canada, chapter C.III.; Report on Norway, question 12.

  207. 207.

    Comparable: Report on Australia, question 13.

  208. 208.

    Report on Norway, question 12.

  209. 209.

    Report on Norway, question 12.

  210. 210.

    Report on Canada, reference 77.

  211. 211.

    Report on the US, reference 117.

  212. 212.

    Report on the US, reference 299.

  213. 213.

    Report on Portugal, question 13.

  214. 214.

    For a brief description of that collective agreement see the chemical union’s journal: IGBCE kompakt (Februar 2009), p. 9–11.

  215. 215.

    Compare: ILO Recommendation No. 162 concerning older employees (1964).

  216. 216.

    Report on Canada, reference 32.

  217. 217.

    Report on Canada, chapter C.II.

  218. 218.

    Report on the US, reference 109.

  219. 219.

    Report on Italy, question 17.

  220. 220.

    Report on Japan, Chapter E.II.

  221. 221.

    Report on Australia, question 14; Report on the Netherlands, question 14; Report on Norway, question 14; Rapport de la Belgique, chapter A.VII.1.b).

  222. 222.

    Report on Norway, question 14; Report on Italy, question 14.

  223. 223.

    Report on Venezuela, question 14; Report on Portugal, question 10.

  224. 224.

    Report on Macao, previous to reference 34.

  225. 225.

    Report on Macao, reference 34.

  226. 226.

    Report on Uruguay, question 14.

  227. 227.

    Report on the Netherlands, question 14; Report on Sweden, question 3.

  228. 228.

    Report on the US, reference 79; Report on New Zealand, reference 151, 152; Report on Australia, question 15; Report on Japan, chapter B.II.3.; Report on Ireland, question 15; Report on Portugal, question 15, Rapport de la Belgique, chapter B.I.; Report on Poland, question 15.

  229. 229.

    Report on Sweden, question 15.

  230. 230.

    Report on Australia, question 15; Report on Japan, chapter B.II.3.

  231. 231.

    Report on the Netherlands, question 15.

  232. 232.

    Report on Ireland, question 15; Report on Slovenia, question 15.

  233. 233.

    Report on Ireland, question 15.

  234. 234.

    Report on Slovenia, question 15.

  235. 235.

    Report on Sweden, question 15.

  236. 236.

    Report on Uruguay, question 16; Report on Venezuela, question 16; Report on the Netherlands, question 16; Report on Ireland, question 16; Report on Portugal, question 16; Rapport de la Belgique, chapter B.II.; Report on Poland, question 16; Report on Czechia, question 16; Report on Greece, question 16.

  237. 237.

    Report on New Zealand, following reference 153; Report on Australia, question 16.

  238. 238.

    Report on New Zealand, reference 153; Report on Australia, question 16.

  239. 239.

    For difficulties in this respect: Report on Japan, chapter C.I.; Report on Italy, question 16.

  240. 240.

    Report on Japan, chapter C.I.; Report on Argentina, question 16; Report on Uruguay, question 16; Report on Ireland, question 8; Report on Norway, question 16; Report on Portugal, question 16; Report on Slovenia, question 16; Report on Italy, question 16; Report on Poland, question 16.

  241. 241.

    Report on Japan, chapter C.III.; Report on Uruguay, question 16; Report on Venezuela, question 16; Report on Romania, question 16 (public service only); Report on Norway, question 3; Report on Portugal, question 16 (public service); Report on Slovenia, question 16; Report on Poland, question 16.

  242. 242.

    Report on Portugal, question 16 (concept of pre-retirement).

  243. 243.

    Report on New Zealand, reference 155.

  244. 244.

    Report on Slovenia, question 16.

  245. 245.

    Report on Romania, question 16; Report on Slovenia, question 16.

  246. 246.

    Report on Australia, question 17; Report on Slovenia, question 17; Report on Portugal, question 2.

  247. 247.

    Report on New Zealand, reference 156; Report on Australia, question 17; Report on Uruguay, question 17; Report on Ireland, question 17; Report on Norway, question 17; Report on Sweden, question 17; Report on Poland, question 17.

  248. 248.

    Report on Uruguay, question 17; Report on Venezuela, question 16; Report on the Netherlands, question 17; Report on Portugal, question 17.

  249. 249.

    Report on the Netherlands, question 17; Report on Portugal, question 17; Rapport de la Belgique, chapter B.II.; Report on Slovenia, question 17; Report on Poland, question 17; Report on Norway, question 17; Report on Czechia, question 17.

  250. 250.

    Report on Norway, question 17; Report on Czechia, question 17.

  251. 251.

    Report on the Netherlands, question 17.

  252. 252.

    Report on Sweden, question 3.

  253. 253.

    Report on Sweden, question 17.

  254. 254.

    Report on the US, reference 298; Report on Japan, chapter D.I.2.

  255. 255.

    Report on Australia, question 3.

  256. 256.

    Report on Australia, question 19; Report on Venezuela, question 3; Report on Norway, question 19, 18; Report on Poland, question 19.

  257. 257.

    Report on Sweden, question 19; Report on Australia, question 20.

  258. 258.

    Report on Australia, question 20.

  259. 259.

    Report on Japan, chapter E.I.

  260. 260.

    Report on Japan, chapter F; Report on Argentina, question 19; Report on Uruguay, question 19.

  261. 261.

    Report on the Netherlands, question 17; Report on Poland, question 20.

  262. 262.

    Report on Portugal, question 17, question 9; Report on Sweden, question 17.

  263. 263.

    Report on the US, reference 89; Report on New Zealand, reference 162, 163; Report on Australia, question 18.

  264. 264.

    Report on Japan, chapter E; Report on Argentina, question 17, 18; Report on the Netherlands, question 17; Report on Ireland, question 18; Rapport de la Belgique, chapter B.IV.; Report on Croatia, question 17, 18.

  265. 265.

    Report on Poland, question 17.

  266. 266.

    Report on Ireland, question 18; Report on Norway, question 17.

  267. 267.

    Report on Uruguay, question 18.

  268. 268.

    Report on the Netherlands, question 18.

  269. 269.

    Report on the Netherlands, question 18.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Monika Schlachter .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Schlachter, M. (2012). The Prohibition of Age Discrimination in Labor Relations. In: Brown, K., Snyder, D. (eds) General Reports of the XVIIIth Congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law/Rapports Généraux du XVIIIème Congrès de l’Académie Internationale de Droit Comparé. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2354-2_18

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics