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

Case report

2011-02-22

Austria

2011/18 No general “Widerspruch” right in Austria (AT)

In February 2011 the Austrian Supreme Court confirmed that Austrian law, except in certain specific situations, does not give employees the right to resist a transfer of undertaking with the effect of retaining their employment with the transferor. In other words there is no general right of “Widerspruch” to object to the transfer, such as exists under German law. However, the court did broaden the scope of the exceptions to the rule, where employees do have a Widerspruch right.

Oberster Gerichtshof (Austrian Supreme Court), 2011-02-22

Summary

2011-02-22

2011/18 No general “Widerspruch” right in Austria (AT)

In February 2011 the Austrian Supreme Court confirmed that Austrian law, except in certain specific situations, does not give employees the right to resist a transfer of undertaking with the effect of retaining their employment with the transferor. In other words there is no general right of “Widerspruch” to object to the transfer, such as exists under German law. However, the court did broaden the scope of the exceptions to the rule, where employees do have a Widerspruch right.

Oberster Gerichtshof (Austrian Supreme Court), 2011-02-22

Case report

2011-02-22

Austria

2011/18 No general “Widerspruch” right in Austria (AT)

In February 2011 the Austrian Supreme Court confirmed that Austrian law, except in certain specific situations, does not give employees the right to resist a transfer of undertaking with the effect of retaining their employment with the transferor. In other words there is no general right of “Widerspruch” to object to the transfer, such as exists under German law. However, the court did broaden the scope of the exceptions to the rule, where employees do have a Widerspruch right.

Oberster Gerichtshof (Austrian Supreme Court), 2011-02-22

Summary

2011-02-22

2011/18 No general “Widerspruch” right in Austria (AT)

In February 2011 the Austrian Supreme Court confirmed that Austrian law, except in certain specific situations, does not give employees the right to resist a transfer of undertaking with the effect of retaining their employment with the transferor. In other words there is no general right of “Widerspruch” to object to the transfer, such as exists under German law. However, the court did broaden the scope of the exceptions to the rule, where employees do have a Widerspruch right.

Oberster Gerichtshof (Austrian Supreme Court), 2011-02-22

Case report

2011-01-01

Hungary

2011/27 Pregnancy protection despite collective redundancy (HU)

A civil servant in a public hospital was informed that she was to be dismissed in the context of a collective redundancy. As she was pregnant at the time, she had dismissal protection and could not be dismissed. Subsequently, the hospital’s activities were privatised. Even though the Hungarian transfer of undertaking legislation does not apply fully to civil servants, the entity that took over the hospital had to offer her employment.

Kuria (Hungarian Supreme Court)

Summary

2011-01-01

2011/27 Pregnancy protection despite collective redundancy (HU)

A civil servant in a public hospital was informed that she was to be dismissed in the context of a collective redundancy. As she was pregnant at the time, she had dismissal protection and could not be dismissed. Subsequently, the hospital’s activities were privatised. Even though the Hungarian transfer of undertaking legislation does not apply fully to civil servants, the entity that took over the hospital had to offer her employment.

Kuria (Hungarian Supreme Court)

Case report

2010-05-26

Austria

2010/75: Not all collective terms cross over to Austrian transferee (AU)

Normally in Austria, following a transfer of undertaking, the transferee’s CLA applies to the transferred employees. However, in the case of the railway privatisation, the transferors’ CLA continues to apply with one exception. This case deals with that exception.

Oberster Gerichtshof (Austrian Supreme Court), 2010-05-26

Summary

2010-05-26

2010/75: Not all collective terms cross over to Austrian transferee (AU)

Normally in Austria, following a transfer of undertaking, the transferee’s CLA applies to the transferred employees. However, in the case of the railway privatisation, the transferors’ CLA continues to apply with one exception. This case deals with that exception.

Oberster Gerichtshof (Austrian Supreme Court), 2010-05-26

Case report

2010-05-20

Germany

2011/4: One-month deadline for exercising Widerspruchsrecht does not start to run if information to staff on impending transfer is misleading (GE)

Failure by an employer to inform the relevant employees correctly about an impending transfer of undertaking can be very costly.

Bundesarbeitsgericht (Federal Labour Court), 2010-05-20

Summary

2010-05-20

2011/4: One-month deadline for exercising Widerspruchsrecht does not start to run if information to staff on impending transfer is misleading (GE)

Failure by an employer to inform the relevant employees correctly about an impending transfer of undertaking can be very costly.

Bundesarbeitsgericht (Federal Labour Court), 2010-05-20