CELEX: 62016CA0149
Language: en
Date: 2017-09-21 00:00:00
Title: Case C-149/16: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Wrocławia-Śródmieścia — Poland) — Halina Socha, Dorota Olejnik, Anna Skomra v Szpital Specjalistyczny im. A. Falkiewicza we Wrocławiu (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Collective redundancies — Directive 98/59/EC — Article 1(1) — Concept of ‘redundancies’ — Assimilation to redundancies of ‘terminations of an employment contract which occur on the employer’s initiative’ — Unilateral amendment by the employer of pay and working conditions)

20.11.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 392/8
            
         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Wrocławia-Śródmieścia — Poland) — Halina Socha, Dorota Olejnik, Anna Skomra v Szpital Specjalistyczny im. A. Falkiewicza we Wrocławiu
   (Case C-149/16) (1)
   
   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Collective redundancies - Directive 98/59/EC - Article 1(1) - Concept of ‘redundancies’ - Assimilation to redundancies of ‘terminations of an employment contract which occur on the employer’s initiative’ - Unilateral amendment by the employer of pay and working conditions))
   (2017/C 392/11)
   Language of the case: Polish
   
      Referring court
   
   Sąd Rejonowy dla Wrocławia-Śródmieścia
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicants: Halina Socha, Dorota Olejnik, Anna Skomra
   
      Defendant: Szpital Specjalistyczny im. A. Falkiewicza we Wrocławiu
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   Article 1(1) and Article 2 of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies must be interpreted as meaning that an employer is required to engage in the consultations provided for in Article 2 when it intends, to the detriment of the employees, to make a unilateral amendment to the terms of remuneration which, if refused by the employees, will result in termination of the employment relationship, to the extent that the conditions laid down in Article 1(1) of that directive are fulfilled, which is for the referring court to determine.
   
      (1)  OJ C 222, 20.6.2016.