根据《乌干达宪法》第 40 条和《就业法》第 56 和 57 条的起草历史,禁止歧视和 工人休产假或陪产假的权利

IF 1.2 Q1 LAW
Jamil D Mujuzi
{"title":"根据《乌干达宪法》第 40 条和《就业法》第 56 和 57 条的起草历史,禁止歧视和 工人休产假或陪产假的权利","authors":"Jamil D Mujuzi","doi":"10.1177/13582291241267005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Workers’ rights are provided for under Article 40 of the Constitution (1995) and in other pieces of legislation. Sections 56 and 57 of the Employment Act (2006) (the Act) provide for the rights to maternity leave and paternity leave respectively. Section 56(1) of the Act provides that ‘[a] female employee shall, as a consequence of pregnancy have the right’ to maternity leave as a result of ‘child birth or miscarriage.’ On the other hand, section 57(1) of the Act provides ‘[a] male employee shall, immediately after the delivery or miscarriage of a wife, have the right to’ paternity leave. It is evident that under section 56, for a female employee to qualify for maternity leave, she doesn’t have to be married. However, for a male employee to qualify for paternity leave, he has to be married. The reason for this is explained in the drafting history of section 57. It is argued that this amounts to discrimination on the ground of marital status. It is also argued that section 56(1) is only applicable to biological mothers and excludes adoptive mothers, commissioning parents (in cases of surrogacy) and those who have committed abortion. This is also discriminatory but could be justified in the case of commissioning parents, adoptive parents and those who have committed abortion.","PeriodicalId":42250,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Discrimination and the Law","volume":"411 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The prohibition of discrimination and the workers’ right to maternity or paternity leave in light of the drafting history of Article 40 of the Constitution of Uganda and sections 56 and 57 of the Employment Act\",\"authors\":\"Jamil D Mujuzi\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/13582291241267005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Workers’ rights are provided for under Article 40 of the Constitution (1995) and in other pieces of legislation. Sections 56 and 57 of the Employment Act (2006) (the Act) provide for the rights to maternity leave and paternity leave respectively. Section 56(1) of the Act provides that ‘[a] female employee shall, as a consequence of pregnancy have the right’ to maternity leave as a result of ‘child birth or miscarriage.’ On the other hand, section 57(1) of the Act provides ‘[a] male employee shall, immediately after the delivery or miscarriage of a wife, have the right to’ paternity leave. It is evident that under section 56, for a female employee to qualify for maternity leave, she doesn’t have to be married. However, for a male employee to qualify for paternity leave, he has to be married. The reason for this is explained in the drafting history of section 57. It is argued that this amounts to discrimination on the ground of marital status. It is also argued that section 56(1) is only applicable to biological mothers and excludes adoptive mothers, commissioning parents (in cases of surrogacy) and those who have committed abortion. This is also discriminatory but could be justified in the case of commissioning parents, adoptive parents and those who have committed abortion.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42250,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Discrimination and the Law\",\"volume\":\"411 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Discrimination and the Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/13582291241267005\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Discrimination and the Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13582291241267005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

宪法》(1995 年)第 40 条和其他立法规定了工人的权利。就业法》(2006 年)(《就业法》)第 56 和 57 条分别规定了产假和陪产假的权利。该法第 56(1)条规定,"女性雇员因怀孕而有权 "因 "分娩或流产 "休产假。另一方面,该法第 57(1)条规定,"男性雇员在妻子分娩或流产后有权立即休陪产假"。显然,根据第 56 条的规定,女性雇员不一定要已婚才有资格休产假。然而,男性雇员必须已婚才有资格休陪产假。第 57 条的起草历史解释了这样做的原因。有人认为,这相当于基于婚姻状况的歧视。还有人认为,第 56(1)条只适用于生身母亲,不包括养母、委托父母(代孕情况下)和堕 胎母亲。这也是歧视性的,但对于委托父母、养父母和堕胎者来说是合理的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The prohibition of discrimination and the workers’ right to maternity or paternity leave in light of the drafting history of Article 40 of the Constitution of Uganda and sections 56 and 57 of the Employment Act
Workers’ rights are provided for under Article 40 of the Constitution (1995) and in other pieces of legislation. Sections 56 and 57 of the Employment Act (2006) (the Act) provide for the rights to maternity leave and paternity leave respectively. Section 56(1) of the Act provides that ‘[a] female employee shall, as a consequence of pregnancy have the right’ to maternity leave as a result of ‘child birth or miscarriage.’ On the other hand, section 57(1) of the Act provides ‘[a] male employee shall, immediately after the delivery or miscarriage of a wife, have the right to’ paternity leave. It is evident that under section 56, for a female employee to qualify for maternity leave, she doesn’t have to be married. However, for a male employee to qualify for paternity leave, he has to be married. The reason for this is explained in the drafting history of section 57. It is argued that this amounts to discrimination on the ground of marital status. It is also argued that section 56(1) is only applicable to biological mothers and excludes adoptive mothers, commissioning parents (in cases of surrogacy) and those who have committed abortion. This is also discriminatory but could be justified in the case of commissioning parents, adoptive parents and those who have committed abortion.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信