JuridischForum.be

Hello,

Sorry for writing in English, I can read and understand NL without issues but writing is not going very smooth (yet).

My wife works at Belgian company which sometimes allows work from home. However, if a women has sick child for example, day worked from home is paid 50%. Even worse, next Monday it is national strike and many women would work from home and school are also not going to work. Women with children will be paid 50% (even children are healthy) and other women and men would be paid 100%.

This sounds like discrimination, and I am looking for opinions and eventual links to the laws that would confirm this. The laws can be in NL, no problem.

I hope that someone has idea about this

Thanks

Is there any way for the company to monitor the work of your wife?
Is this arrangement somehow written in the labor contract?

The actions of the company make sense to me: the woman is doing two jobs at the same time. However I doubt that it is legal to do this in such an arbitrary way.

Well, the point is that at the end the work needs to be done. She and other colleagues anyway have to complete the work that is assigned to them so it is at least unfair that women with the children are paid less. The work from home is not regulated in the contract and it is more like managers decision who can work from home and who can't, and if they are paid 50% or 100%.

“Art.20.De werkgever is verplicht :1° de werknemer te doen arbeiden op de wijze, tijd en plaats zoals is overeengekomen, inzonderheid, zo de omstandigheden dit vereisen en behoudens strijdige bepaling, door de voor de uitvoering van het werk nodige hulp, hulpmiddelen en materialen ter beschikking te stellen...3° het loon te betalen op de wijze, tijd en plaats zoals is overeengekomen...”(3 JULI 1978. - Wet betreffende de arbeidsovereenkomsten)

‘However, if a women has sick child for example, day worked from home is paid 50%. Even worse...’

Indien de arbeidsovereenkomst hierover geen regeling bevat en de werkgever toch thuiswerk wil opleggen of toelaten dan dient hij die regeling in de arbeidsovereenkomst op te nemen en na te leven. Wend u daartoe zo nodig tot uw vakbond of desnoods rechtstreeks tot http://www.werk.belgie.be/defaultTab.aspx?id=6552" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is clearly discrimination:

http://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/cgi/ar ... aller=list" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

HOOFDSTUK II. - Algemene bepalingen
Art. 2. § 1. Er is sprake van directe discriminatie indien een verschil in behandeling dat niet objectief en redelijkerwijze wordt gerechtvaardigd, rechtstreeks gebaseerd is op het geslacht, een zogenaamd ras, de huidskleur, de afkomst, de nationale of etnische afstamming, seksuele geaardheid, de burgerlijke staat, de geboorte, het fortuin, de leeftijd, het geloof of de levensbeschouwing, de huidige of toekomstige gezondheidstoestand, een handicap of een fysieke eigenschap.
§ 2. Er is sprake van indirecte discriminatie wanneer een ogenschijnlijk neutrale bepaling, maatstaf of handelwijze als dusdanig een schadelijke weerslag heeft op personen op wie een van de in § 1 genoemde discriminatiegronden van toepassing is, tenzij die bepaling, maatstaf of handelwijze objectief en redelijkerwijze wordt gerechtvaardigd.
§ 3. Het ontbreken van redelijke aanpassingen voor de persoon met een handicap vormt een discriminatie in de zin van deze wet.
Als een redelijke aanpassing wordt beschouwd de aanpassing die geen onevenredige belasting betekent, of waarvan de belasting in voldoende mate gecompenseerd wordt door bestaande maatregelen.
§ 4. Elke vorm van directe of indirecte discriminatie is verboden bij :
- het leveren of het ter beschikking stellen van goederen en diensten aan het publiek;
- de voorwaarden voor toegang tot arbeid in loondienst, tot onbetaalde arbeid of als zelfstandige, met inbegrip van de selectie- en aanstellingscriteria, ongeacht de tak van activiteit en op alle niveaus van de beroepshiërarchie, met inbegrip van de bevorderingskansen, alsook de werkgelegenheid en arbeidsvoorwaarden, met inbegrip van ontslag en bezoldiging, zowel in de privé-sector als in de overheidssector;

However, if a women has sick child for example, day worked from home is paid 50%.

This sounds like a favor measure from the employer. Normally, if you have to stay home for a sick child, you need to take social leave, which is not paid at all.

Normally, if you have a sick child at home that needs taking care off, you should not be able to do your job for 100%.

Even worse, next Monday it is national strike and many women would work from home and school are also not going to work. Women with children will be paid 50% (even children are healthy) and other women and men would be paid 100%.

Nobody is obliged to stay at home, I think? So nobody forbids your wife to just come to work and be paid at full, no?

Only problem I see is indeed the arbitrarity here. From one part, I do understand that the employer assumes that you can't work for 100% with children in the house, but from the other part, who sais you can't work for 75% or even 80% instead of 50%?

How will the employer describe this on the payslip? Will women with children have 1/2 day off social leave or something like that? What's the official policy around home work at your company (apart from the reason why)?

If, for instance, people can work 1 day a week from home at full pay, then your wife has the right to do so on monday, without having to mention to the employer that the reason is that the school is on strike. She will have to work 100% that day, however (kids go to the grandparents or something like that).

However, if a women has sick child for example, day worked from home is paid 50%.

This sounds like a favor measure from the employer. Normally, if you have to stay home for a sick child, you need to take social leave, which is not paid at all.

Normally, if you have a sick child at home that needs taking care off, you should not be able to do your job for 100%.

i'ts not a favor measure from the employer. Social leave means you don't work, and as a result, you don't get paid.

If the boss wants to allow people to work, he has to pay the working hours 100%. You can't just tell: no matter how much you work, you only get 50%.

Even worse, next Monday it is national strike and many women would work from home and school are also not going to work. Women with children will be paid 50% (even children are healthy) and other women and men would be paid 100%.

Nobody is obliged to stay at home, I think? So nobody forbids your wife to just come to work and be paid at full, no?

Only problem I see is indeed the arbitrarity here. From one part, I do understand that the employer assumes that you can't work for 100% with children in the house, but from the other part, who sais you can't work for 75% or even 80% instead of 50%?

why shouldn't you be able to work 100%? You might not work as efficient, but you certainly can cover the usual amount of work, maybe just some hours after the normal daily hours.

Don't forget an employer is not obliged at all to allow work from home. So in that sense it's certainly a favor measure. In our home work policy is clearly stated that home work is not meant to take care of children, sick or not, and that the employer can always revoke someone's right to work from home. When we work from home, we also have to be able to come to the office if it's necessary (unexpected meeting or something like that), be available at all times, and the work to be done is clearly defined. Home work is mainly allowed at our workplace to reduce travel-time between home and workplace.

So in the case of the topic starter, it would be much clearer if the employer states the same as mine: "You can work from home and will be paid in full, but the work to be done will be defined on beforehand by your superior, you should be available by phone, vid-con, mail and chat at all times, and if needed you should be able to come to work at all times. Home work is not meant at all to take care of children."

Seems to me that the employer of the topic starter is a bit too generous, which causes confusion...

Tom, what you are writing might be right and makes sense to me, but it is completely besides the point for the TS's question.

Seems to me that the employer of the topic starter is a bit too generous, which causes confusion...

he isn't necessary too generous, he just creates his own rules. Which can be in his (dis)advantage, depending the case.

Tom, what you are writing might be right and makes sense to me, but it is completely besides the point for the TS's question.

No it's not. I advise the topic starter that his wife does not make use of the possibility her employer offers. She won't loose any salary at all, then. Nobody can be forced to work from home...