High Court of Justice of Catalonia (TSJC) Do not mind sexist a company to impose on its employees a uniform with a chest-high advertisement, as long as it is also mandatory for male workers. This was determined by a decision by the judges that lifted the €25,000 fine imposed by a court of first instance, which EL PERIODICO from the Prensa Ibérica group had access to and which found this commercial practice discriminatory for women. The Supreme Court was of the opinion that the commercial campaign in question was no more objectifying for women than for men.
The facts date back to January 2019, when the fuel company delivered a new workwear to its employees, consisting of a printed T-shirt from forced use and a new commercial campaign. This advert it was located just in line with the workers’ chests (or their counterparts’ pectorals) and contained the phrase: “Ask me for the most advanced fuel on the market.” A few of the employees expressed their feelings. discomfortbecause as a result some customers were staring at their breasts.
The CCOO union sued the company after it refused to withdraw the uniforms in question or offer an alternative to employees who were offended by them. The uniform in question had not previously been agreed with the legal representatives of the workers. initially court magistrate 32 social de Barcelona agreed with the union and described the practice as sexist. But on the company’s appeal, TSJC decided otherwise and ruled in Galp’s favour, as it felt the ad campaign did not “sexualize” women.
“moral judgment”
The judges defend their decision that they did not find out. direct discrimination because of gender, shirts were the same for men as for women. An example of direct discrimination based on gender is that female cabin crew must wear a different uniform – with heels, make-up, and mascara – than male crew members, as recently determined by the Work Inspection at Vueling.
And a second argument is that they didn’t see anything. indirect discrimination for gender reasons. That is, although officially the same treatment for men and women is the same, it is actually different. Something that the president of the first instance court appreciated.
Although women’s breasts were often a sexualized part of the body, she thought it was discriminatory for them to place advertisements at this height. Often times a heterosexual man can use advertisements to look at his breasts.
Here, the TSJC judges amend the verdict as follows: “The inscription on the chest area of the shirts constitutes a sexual claim on the worker, not on the worker,” an idea that clearly contradicts morality and the condemnation of the female body, the equality of men and women”.
In other words, the TSJC affirms that it is a moral judgment and a violation of the principle of equality for a woman’s breasts to be more ‘sexualizable’ than a man’s, regardless of the fact that historically women’s breasts have been the object of sexualization more often than men’s. . Therefore, Galp decides in favor of the company and removes the 25,000 Euro fine.
Source: Informacion
James Sean is a writer for “Social Bites”. He covers a wide range of topics, bringing the latest news and developments to his readers. With a keen sense of what’s important and a passion for writing, James delivers unique and insightful articles that keep his readers informed and engaged.