Luxembourg implemented the EU General Data Protection Regulation through the Law on the Organisation of Luxembourg's National Commission for Data Protection and the General System for Protecting Data. The law made a number of changes to the Labour Code, including extending the circumstances in which employers can process personal data to monitor their employees. Further, employers no longer have to obtain prior authorisation to monitor employees.
In addition to an employee's basic monthly remuneration, employment contracts often provide for the payment of various bonuses or gratuities, the specifics of which can be freely agreed by the parties to the employment relationship. In a recent dispute between a chief operating officer and her former employer, the Court of Appeal considered whether the annual bonus provided for in the employee's contract was owed to her since she had failed to complete her trial period.
The Law of 29 August 2017 reformed the system under which the government co-finances employee vocational training in order to encourage employers to invest in developing their employees' skills while reducing the inequalities in the amount of aid provided to large and small companies. However, a number of matters remained unclear. As such, a recent Grand Ducal regulation has provided useful clarification, particularly with regard to the content and practical details of co-financing requests.
A new law modifying the Labour Code and the Modified Law establishing the General Status of Civil Servants recently came into effect. The law has increased the minimum statutory paid leave entitlement from 25 to 26 days a year. It has also declared Europe Day, celebrated annually on 9 May, a statutory public holiday.
Employees who cannot work due to illness are, in principle, protected against dismissal. The Court of Appeal recently reiterated the conditions which must be met for this protection to apply and, failing this, the circumstances in which an employee's absence may justify dismissal for serious misconduct. Notably, the unique nature of the case and the fact that the employee had worked for the company for nine years did not affect the court's decision.