𝐍𝐨𝐧-𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐚 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐤𝐞: 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐛𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐞 𝐚 𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧? Given the strike yesterday against possible future pension changes, this might be a hot topic. The Act of 10 May 2007 to combat certain forms of discrimination, prohibits discrimination based on a range of criteria, including trade union conviction. While cases in which a worker claims damages for discrimination based on trade union conviction are more common, this is not the case if a worker claims damages for discrimination based on his or her lack of a trade union conviction (and non-participation to a strike). In a 2023 case, the Brussels labour court pointed out that the protected criterion of ‘trade union conviction’ includes membership of or belonging to a trade union as well as trade union activities. According to the court, the absence of trade union conviction does not fall within the legally protected criteria contained in the Act of 10 May 2007. The court further finds that the non-participation in a strike does not necessarily express a ‘negative’ trade union conviction. As such, a worker who is not affiliated to a union can decide to participate in a strike and vice versa, a worker who is affiliated to a union can decide not to participate. The court also stressed that the reason for a non-unionized worker not to participate in a strike may be financial and not due to a lack of union conviction. Taking all these factors into account, the worker was not entitled to a lump-sum compensation for discrimination. Note that there are, however, others who argue that the lack of a trade union conviction does fall under the scope of the discrimination regulations so the final word has not yet been said on this. #strike #tradeunion #discrimination #Claeysengels
