ECJ 17 March 2021, Case C-652/19 (Consulmarketing), Fixed-Term Work, Collective Redundancies

KO – v – Consulmarketing SpA , Italian Case

ECJ 17 March 2021, Case C-652/19 (Consulmarketing), Fixed-Term Work, Collective Redundancies

KO – v – Consulmarketing SpA , Italian Case

ECJ 11 November 2020, Case C-300/19 (Marclean Technologies SLU), Collective Redundancies

UQ - v - Marclean Technologies SLU, Spanish case

ECJ 11 November 2020, Case C-300/19 (Marclean Technologies SLU), Collective Redundancies

UQ - v - Marclean Technologies SLU, Spanish case

2020/19 Relationship between time of notification of collective redundancies and time of notice of termination (GE)

The notice of collective redundancies required to be given to an employment agency pursuant to Section 17(1) of the German Protection Against Unfair Dismissal Act (Kündigungsschutzgesetz, “KSchG”) can only be effectively submitted if the employer has already decided to terminate the employment contract at the time of its receipt by the employment agency. Notices of termination in collective redundancy proceedings are therefore effective – subject to the fulfilment of any other notice requirements – if the proper notice is received by the competent employment agency before the employee has received the letter of termination.

2020/19 Relationship between time of notification of collective redundancies and time of notice of termination (GE)

The notice of collective redundancies required to be given to an employment agency pursuant to Section 17(1) of the German Protection Against Unfair Dismissal Act (Kündigungsschutzgesetz, “KSchG”) can only be effectively submitted if the employer has already decided to terminate the employment contract at the time of its receipt by the employment agency. Notices of termination in collective redundancy proceedings are therefore effective – subject to the fulfilment of any other notice requirements – if the proper notice is received by the competent employment agency before the employee has received the letter of termination.

2018/38 Collective Redundancies: Failure to notify Employment Service cannot be healed by postponing termination (AU)

The Austrian Supreme Court has held that the employer must notify the Employment Service (AMS) when it is contemplating collective redundancies, even if they are carried by mutual agreement. The duty of notification is triggered if the employer proposes a mutual termination agreement to a relevant number of employees, provided the offer is binding and can be accepted by the employees within 30 days. If the employer fails to notify the AMS, any subsequent redundancies (or mutual terminations of employment occurring on the employer’s initiative) are void, even if effected after 30 days.

2018/38 Collective Redundancies: Failure to notify Employment Service cannot be healed by postponing termination (AU)

The Austrian Supreme Court has held that the employer must notify the Employment Service (AMS) when it is contemplating collective redundancies, even if they are carried by mutual agreement. The duty of notification is triggered if the employer proposes a mutual termination agreement to a relevant number of employees, provided the offer is binding and can be accepted by the employees within 30 days. If the employer fails to notify the AMS, any subsequent redundancies (or mutual terminations of employment occurring on the employer’s initiative) are void, even if effected after 30 days.

2018/26 Unilateral changes to employment terms and conditions treated as redundancy in employment law (PL)

In 2017, the ECJ delivered its judgment in the Socha case (C-149/16). This judgment, about the Collective Redundancy Directive (98/59/EC), highlights the contradictions between the Directive and Polish law and demonstrates some of consequences such a judgment can lead to.

2018/26 Unilateral changes to employment terms and conditions treated as redundancy in employment law (PL)

In 2017, the ECJ delivered its judgment in the Socha case (C-149/16). This judgment, about the Collective Redundancy Directive (98/59/EC), highlights the contradictions between the Directive and Polish law and demonstrates some of consequences such a judgment can lead to.