An adjudicator considering allegations of unjust dismissal under the Canada Labour Code recently ruled that an employer was prohibited from asserting dismissal for misconduct since the issue had already been decided by an employment insurance officer. The decision reminds employers to proceed with caution when communicating with employment insurance officers after a termination. They should also consider the potential ramifications of not appealing an officer's decision.
As part of a flurry of responses and new consultations issued in the last days of Theresa May's government, the response to the consultation on measures to prevent the misuse of confidentiality clauses in the workplace was published. It sets out a number of significant legislative proposals which, when implemented, will necessitate redrafting of these clauses in both employment contracts and settlement agreements.
Since 1981, the Federal Constitution has guaranteed equal wages for men and women who carry out similar work; however, a wage disparity exists that arguably cannot be explained by anything other than gender. The revised Federal Act on Gender Equality, which enters into force on 1 July 2020, aims to remedy this situation. Under the new regime, companies with 100 or more employees will be obliged to carry out an internal wage equality analysis every four years to identify any gender pay gaps.
A recent district court ruling demonstrates that an employer can be liable for a customer's sexual harassment towards an employee. The ruling shows that, as a minimum, employers should perform a risk analysis of and have a zero-tolerance approach to sexual harassment, have guidelines on sexual harassment matters and immediately address sexual harassment situations if they occur.
The posting of employees from an EU country to Italy must comply with Legislative Decree 136/2016. The law applies to companies established in EU member states which, in the context of the provision of services, post to Italy one or more employees in favour of another company, including those belonging to the same group, another production unit or another recipient, on the condition that during the posting, an employment relationship continues to exist with the posted employee.
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario recently held that a law firm discriminated against an applicant because of his age and race, and by failing to investigate his discrimination complaint. This decision is an important reminder for employers to be careful in how they assess and treat candidates during the recruitment process. Among other things, employers should be courteous in their communications with all candidates and avoid engaging in arguments with them.
The National Labour Relations Board recently issued a decision that expands the Supreme Court's decision in Epic Systems Corp v Lewis and further authorises employers to limit employees' ability to file or opt in to a class or collective action against their employer. In light of the decision, employers may not only require employees to enter an arbitration agreement that requires one-on-one arbitration, but also impose such an agreement after, and in response to, employees filing or opting in to a class or collective action.
What might a no-deal Brexit mean for UK employment rights? What could employers do now to prepare? And what might the future hold in a no-deal scenario? Prime Minister Boris Johnson is clear that he would be prepared to leave the European Union without a deal if necessary and the current legislation commits the United Kingdom to leaving the European Union at 11:00pm on 31 October 2019. Thus, it seems like a good time to revisit the employment law implications of a no-deal Brexit for employers.
The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) came into effect in the European Union in 2018. At its core, the GDPR aims to give individuals more control over the way in which their personal data is collected, retained, managed and processed. Despite being an EU regulation, the GDPR's application extends to companies in Hong Kong and employers there should thus be aware of what they must do to comply with it.
Can a unionised employee be fired for masturbating at work or is there a duty for employers to accommodate this conduct as a sex addiction? These were the novel questions considered in a recent case. The decision does not end the dispute about whether a sex addiction is a recognised medical condition that could be a disability, but it does reinforce the importance of progressive discipline in upholding a cause termination.
The Court of Appeal recently found that it is unlawful to discriminate against a person because of a mistaken perception that they have a progressive condition which would make them unable to perform the full functions of a role in future. This decision confirms that the test is not whether the discriminator believes that the impairment meets the legal definition of 'disability', but whether they believe that it has those features. However, beyond this point, the case has raised some difficult issues.
Many employees struggle to manage disability leave. This is particularly difficult when an employee wants to work but their doctor says that they cannot do so for the foreseeable future. A recent decision provides guidance to employers dealing with this situation. For example, they should proactively manage disability leave by, among other things, staying up to date on an employee's potential to return to work.
The Haryana state government recently issued a notification under the Standing Orders Act and introduced a new requirement for principal employers and contractors to file an undertaking of compliance with the act. While the 2019 notification aims to ensure the effective enforcement of the act, employers may perceive the move to require compliance a condition precedent to obtaining registration under other labour laws as a roadblock.
Mergers are one way in which companies can increase their revenue and expand their business. However, along with these benefits, there are a number of risks associated with the merger of two or more businesses, including a loss of customers and key employees and business interruptions. This article discusses the challenges and practical realities of managing employees during a merger.
A recent arbitration decision reminds employers that distinctions between different classes of protected employee may be discriminatory. As such, employers should review their policies and agreements in light of this decision to ensure that differential treatment is not applied to employees in different protected classes on leave, as this may provide a basis for a successful discrimination claim.
Following recent amendments to Article L 222-9 of the Labour Code, the monthly minimum social wage for a non-qualified employee paid per month has been fixed – as of 1 January 2019 – at €256.60 (with the index value of 100 weighted for the cost of living as of 1 January 1948). Thus, as of 1 January 2019 the new gross amounts of the monthly minimum social wage and the applicable legal thresholds and ceilings have been amended.
For US employers with 100 or more employees, extensive new information relating to their prior Equal Employment Opportunity-1 filings must soon be submitted. Specifically, in addition to categorising employees by race or ethnicity, gender and job type, employers must now assemble and submit aggregated employee data regarding compensation and annualised hours worked. Assembling the required data may be much more complicated than many employers are expecting, so it is important to begin planning now.
The EU Work-Life Balance Directive introduces new rights for carers and working parents. If the United Kingdom needs to comply (or if it chooses to do so), UK employers must make several changes to their existing family leave and pay framework. For example, although the United Kingdom provides a right to paternity leave and pay, both rights are currently subject to a six-month service requirement. To comply with the directive, the service requirement for paternity leave (although not pay) would need to be scrapped.
The 24th Civil Court of Santiago recently found that 16 inter-company unions had been created with the sole purpose of granting union privileges to their leaders and ordered the unions to be removed from the Labour Authority's register. The ruling is of great relevance as it is the first time that a civil court has dissolved a union for illicit activity contrary to the spirit of the law that regulates labour organisations.
In a preliminary ruling in a case referred to it by the Galicia High Court, the European Court of Justice has confirmed the existence of objective grounds which justify a difference in compensation paid on the termination of works contracts linked to a specific service (ie, 12 days' salary) and the termination of permanent contracts (ie, 20 days' salary). The Galician court must now decide whether the early termination of a service agreement falls under Article 52 of the Workers' Statute.