2013/15 Which employer to sue in the event an invalid dismissal is followed by a transfer of undertaking? (CZ)

A hotel employee was dismissed in 2001. Twelve days later the hotel was sold. The employee sued the former owner and the court declared the dismissal to have been invalid. The old owner then refused to pay salary because he was no longer the plaintiff’s employer, given that the sale of the hotel constituted a transfer of undertaking. The new owner denied that he was bound by the judgment, as he was not a party to the proceedings. The plaintiff brought an action against both the old and new owner jointly. After almost twelve years of litigation the Supreme Court denied the claim, because the plaintiff sued the wrong party in 2001. However, both the old and the new owner may be liable after all, if they failed to inform the plaintiff adequately of the transfer of undertaking.

2013/15 Which employer to sue in the event an invalid dismissal is followed by a transfer of undertaking? (CZ)

A hotel employee was dismissed in 2001. Twelve days later the hotel was sold. The employee sued the former owner and the court declared the dismissal to have been invalid. The old owner then refused to pay salary because he was no longer the plaintiff’s employer, given that the sale of the hotel constituted a transfer of undertaking. The new owner denied that he was bound by the judgment, as he was not a party to the proceedings. The plaintiff brought an action against both the old and new owner jointly. After almost twelve years of litigation the Supreme Court denied the claim, because the plaintiff sued the wrong party in 2001. However, both the old and the new owner may be liable after all, if they failed to inform the plaintiff adequately of the transfer of undertaking.

2013/51 Transfer of employees on reoutsourcing? The employee follows the work... or not? (Article)

The business case for outsourcing is determined in part by whether the supplier will take over employees with the work. In second and further generations of outsourcing contracts this can – at least in a number of European countries - cause difficult discussions - over the heads of the employees - between the old and the new supplier. When does the employee follow the work - and particularly when not? 

2013/51 Transfer of employees on reoutsourcing? The employee follows the work... or not? (Article)

The business case for outsourcing is determined in part by whether the supplier will take over employees with the work. In second and further generations of outsourcing contracts this can – at least in a number of European countries - cause difficult discussions - over the heads of the employees - between the old and the new supplier. When does the employee follow the work - and particularly when not? 

2013/1 No special right to object to transfer (Widerspruchsrecht) for disabled employees (AT)

In February 2011, the Austrian Supreme Court had confirmed that Austrian law generally does not give employees the right to retain their employment with the transferor in the case of a business transfer. However, the court did broaden the scope of the exceptions to the rule, where employees do have a Widerspruch right.

In this more recent case, the court held that, unlike members of a works council, disabled employees enjoying special protection against dismissal did not have a privileged right to object to being employed by the transferee.

2013/1 No special right to object to transfer (Widerspruchsrecht) for disabled employees (AT)

In February 2011, the Austrian Supreme Court had confirmed that Austrian law generally does not give employees the right to retain their employment with the transferor in the case of a business transfer. However, the court did broaden the scope of the exceptions to the rule, where employees do have a Widerspruch right.

In this more recent case, the court held that, unlike members of a works council, disabled employees enjoying special protection against dismissal did not have a privileged right to object to being employed by the transferee.

2012/16: ETO defence fails (NL)

It is not up to the parties of a (collective) agreement to determine whether a situation qualifies as an ETO reason.

2012/16: ETO defence fails (NL)

It is not up to the parties of a (collective) agreement to determine whether a situation qualifies as an ETO reason.

2012/45 Employee who refuses to go across to transferee loses job (GR)

Greek law has no provision entitling employees to refuse automatic transfer into the employment of the transferee in the event of a transfer of undertaking.

2012/45 Employee who refuses to go across to transferee loses job (GR)

Greek law has no provision entitling employees to refuse automatic transfer into the employment of the transferee in the event of a transfer of undertaking.