The employees' provident fund is a social security fund comprising contributions from employers and employees, which are paid to employees on their retirement. The entire process is administered by the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO), which is a statutory body established by the Ministry of Labour and Employment. To keep up with digitisation, the EPFO recently updated the process under which subscribers can withdraw and transfer provident funds.
In an emphatic judgment, the Court of Appeal has ruled that it is not direct discrimination, indirect discrimination or a breach of equal pay rights to provide enhanced pay for maternity leave and statutory pay only for shared parental leave (SPL). This judgment is good news for employers, as it sends a clear message that it is lawful to enhance maternity pay but provide statutory pay only for SPL.
The Supreme Court recently ruled on the scope of reinstatement protection in the event of dismissal for cause provided by Article 3 of the Jobs Act. Despite the rule providing for reinstatement to be linked to the non-existence of disputed material facts, the court considered that reinstatement should occur not only when the material facts of a case did not take place, but also when they are insignificant from a disciplinary perspective.
Norway's labour legislation has undergone a number of amendments in recent months. For example, Parliament recently adopted a proposal to further strengthen the position of whistleblowers and amendments enhancing the rights of seafarers are set to enter into force in August 2019. In addition, in order to lower the threshold for processing sexual harassment disputes, the Anti-discrimination Tribunal has been authorised to enforce the prohibition on sexual harassment in the workplace.
Applying for mediation was recently made a prerequisite when filing a lawsuit concerning monetary claims by employees or employers arising out of employment contracts, collective labour agreements or reinstatement claims. Mandatory mediation was introduced to accelerate legal proceedings and lower the costs in employment disputes.
A recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision has confirmed that a release signed by an employee should be overturned for unfairness only if there is clear evidence of a lack of fairness. The court specifically cautioned against making conclusions on motions without sufficient evidence, which may cause plaintiffs and defendants alike to reconsider under what circumstances the court will grant summary judgment.
The Court of Final Appeal recently handed down a landmark judgment in favour of the LGBT community. Employers are recommended to review their policies to ensure that they are in line with the principles laid down in the decision. In particular, employers should ensure that spousal employment benefits (eg, those set out in employment contracts) also apply to same-sex spouses, in addition to opposite-sex spouses.
Company leaders such as CEOs are expressly excluded from the scope of the Employment Protection Act. Therefore, the parties to a CEO's employment agreement must agree its terms. However, the reasonability and validity of the agreed terms and conditions may be assessed or determined by the Swedish courts. Given the lack of applicable law in this area, the parties to a CEO's employment agreement must agree on the terms relating to both active employment and termination (by either party).
The Employees' State Insurance (ESI) (Central) Rules 1950 were recently amended to reduce the required rates of contribution to the statutory fund maintained by the ESI Corporation for the provision of sickness and health benefits. The aim of this change is to cast a wider net by expanding social security coverage to a larger part of the population. However, news reports indicate that – as is often the case – the change has come under criticism.
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.
Bill 18 – Workers Compensation Amendment Act 2019, which proposes to expand the definition of 'firefighter' under the Workers Compensation Act for the purpose of presumptions in favour of compensation for firefighters, has passed its third reading in the British Columbia Legislature. In addition, the second reading of Bill 8 – Employment Standards Amendment Act 2019 has been held, providing additional details around some of the government's proposed amendments to the act.
This article reviews the impact of the #MeToo movement, and other corporate culture concerns, on employers and its connection with the Supreme Court's decision in Epic Systems. There is concern that the court's decision will, in many cases, deprive women and men who have been victims of sexual assault or harassment in the workplace of their right to bring collective or class actions, as Epic Systems has forced employees to bring their claims through one-on-one arbitration.
Following a trial in the High Court where an employer was awarded final injunctions to prohibit a former employee from breaching post-termination restrictions, the losing employee was ordered to pay 90% of his former employer's legal bill. This is a useful decision for employers, as it demonstrates that a reasonable and proportionate email trawl need not infringe an employee's privacy rights.
In 2018 the Ontario government issued a new compensation framework regulation that continued to freeze the current levels of compensation for executives at most designated employers within the broader public sector. While the freeze remains in effect, proposed amendments indicate that the government will be introducing a new regulation – and new compensation frameworks – that will provide further guidance on executive compensation going forward.
Many companies advertise and sell sophisticated video interview software to large companies for recruitment purposes. While applicants are interviewed from the comfort of their own homes, up to 20,000 data points can be collected from this type of interview and analysed instantaneously using algorithms to find the right employee. However, many legal issues have arisen following the introduction of this software.
The so-called 'Macron ordinances' overhauled the Labour Code in September 2017. One of the main effects was the introduction of a schedule of damages in French labour law, whereby a judge can award damages for unfair dismissal only within certain limitations depending on the employee's seniority. While some lower courts have applied the new law, an increasing number of courts are challenging it on the basis that it would be contrary to international law.
As employers doing business in California know, California's employment regulatory scheme is the most comprehensive of any US state. In particular, the California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) allows employees to sue employers for civil penalties on behalf of themselves and other employees. Most significantly, PAGA provides for the reimbursement of attorneys' fees to employees who successfully bring suit. However, Epic Systems may mean a change in favour of standalone PAGA cases.
Parliament recently adopted a new law amending several sectorial laws concerning the processing of personal data. The new law aims to provide clarity in these areas and has amended the general rules of the Labour Code. It has also introduced a new chapter which sets out general rules on the handling of employee data. Although the amendments of the existing rules on the processing of employee data have been eagerly awaited, many practitioners have expressed their disappointment.
In an unusual case of whistleblowing detriment brought by an overseas employee against two co-workers (also based overseas), the Court of Appeal has ruled that the employment tribunal in question had no jurisdiction to hear the claim in relation to personal liability of the co-workers because they were outside the scope of UK employment law. The decision may have implications for other types of claim brought by employees posted overseas where similar personal liability provisions apply.
Non-compete restrictions are the tool most commonly used by employers to protect their proprietary interests following the end of an employment relationship, particularly in the case of C-suite employees. However, non-compete restrictions which apply beyond the term of an employment relationship are generally unenforceable in India. That said, this does not mean that employers have no recourse whatsoever.