Top of page ↑
Log out
Reset filters
    • Verdicts from/at until
64 search results

Case report

2014-07-01

Denmark

2014/36 Plaintiffs were de facto still employed on transfer date (DK)

The Confederation of Danish Employers on behalf of Employers’ Association A on behalf of Employer B – v – The Danish Confederation of Trade Unions on behalf of Trade Union C

Arbejdsretten (the Danish Labour Court), 2014-07-01

Summary

2014-07-01

2014/36 Plaintiffs were de facto still employed on transfer date (DK)

The Confederation of Danish Employers on behalf of Employers’ Association A on behalf of Employer B – v – The Danish Confederation of Trade Unions on behalf of Trade Union C

Arbejdsretten (the Danish Labour Court), 2014-07-01

Case report

2014-05-22

Czech Republic

2014/38 Czech Supreme Court applies ‘good practice’ rather than transfers of undertakings rules (CZ)

An employee transferred from one legal entity to another. Even though the transfer qualified as a transfer of undertaking, the employee was paid severance compensation. When he was dismissed a few months later, the transferee demanded repayment of 3/5th of the compensation, pursuant to Czech law. The Supreme Court rejected the demand. It did so without applying the transfer of undertakings rules. Instead, it held the demand to be “contrary to good practice”.

Nejvyšší soud (Czech Supreme Court), 2014-05-22

Summary

2014-05-22

2014/38 Czech Supreme Court applies ‘good practice’ rather than transfers of undertakings rules (CZ)

An employee transferred from one legal entity to another. Even though the transfer qualified as a transfer of undertaking, the employee was paid severance compensation. When he was dismissed a few months later, the transferee demanded repayment of 3/5th of the compensation, pursuant to Czech law. The Supreme Court rejected the demand. It did so without applying the transfer of undertakings rules. Instead, it held the demand to be “contrary to good practice”.

Nejvyšší soud (Czech Supreme Court), 2014-05-22

Case report

2014-04-07

Netherlands

2014/15 Court interprets ETO exception narrowly (NL)

Shortly after the department where the plaintiff worked was sold to another company, he was told that he earned too much, that the department would be restructured and that he would be made redundant. The plaintiff argued successfully that the real reason for his dismissal had nothing to do with restructuring but was the sale of the department, and that therefore his dismissal violated the statutory prohibition against dismissal based on transfers of undertakings, and was void.

Rechtbank (District Court) of Amsterdam, 2014-04-07

Summary

2014-04-07

2014/15 Court interprets ETO exception narrowly (NL)

Shortly after the department where the plaintiff worked was sold to another company, he was told that he earned too much, that the department would be restructured and that he would be made redundant. The plaintiff argued successfully that the real reason for his dismissal had nothing to do with restructuring but was the sale of the department, and that therefore his dismissal violated the statutory prohibition against dismissal based on transfers of undertakings, and was void.

Rechtbank (District Court) of Amsterdam, 2014-04-07

Case report

2013-10-17

Germany

2014/41 employee forfeits right to object to transfer (GE)

An employee’s right to object to a transfer of undertaking and to remain employed by the transferor can be forfeited if the employee first sues the transferee, then settles and then sues the transferor.

Bundesarbeitsgericht (Federal Labour Court), 2013-10-17

Summary

2013-10-17

2014/41 employee forfeits right to object to transfer (GE)

An employee’s right to object to a transfer of undertaking and to remain employed by the transferor can be forfeited if the employee first sues the transferee, then settles and then sues the transferor.

Bundesarbeitsgericht (Federal Labour Court), 2013-10-17

Case report

2013-06-12

Netherlands

2013/35 Transferee liable for transferor’s pension premium arrears (NL)

Both the transferor and the transferee are affiliated to one and the same mandatory industry-level pension fund. A transfer of undertaking occurs. The transferor has not paid all pension contributions due prior to the date of transfer. The pension provider attempts to collect these contributions from the transferee. The court holds that these contributions can successfully be claimed by the pension provider from the transferee based on the transfer of undertaking legislation.

Kantonrechter Utrecht (Subdistrict Court Utrecht), 2013-06-12

Summary

2013-06-12

2013/35 Transferee liable for transferor’s pension premium arrears (NL)

Both the transferor and the transferee are affiliated to one and the same mandatory industry-level pension fund. A transfer of undertaking occurs. The transferor has not paid all pension contributions due prior to the date of transfer. The pension provider attempts to collect these contributions from the transferee. The court holds that these contributions can successfully be claimed by the pension provider from the transferee based on the transfer of undertaking legislation.

Kantonrechter Utrecht (Subdistrict Court Utrecht), 2013-06-12