EELC 2013/49 Employer may not subject employees to lie detector tests (HU)

An employee in a financial institution was suspected of fraud. He was asked to undergo a lie detector test (‘polygraph’). He agreed and consented in writing to the test. Four days after undergoing the test he was dismissed. He filed for unfair dismissal. Although the court dismissed the claim for unfair dismissal, the employee was awarded damages for violation of his right to privacy. Subjecting an employee to a polygraph examination is an excessive and therefore unlawful method of gathering evidence in respect of which the employer bears the burden of proof.

<p>EELC 2013/49 Employer may not subject employees to lie detector tests (HU)</p>

An employee in a financial institution was suspected of fraud. He was asked to undergo a lie detector test (‘polygraph’). He agreed and consented in writing to the test. Four days after undergoing the test he was dismissed. He filed for unfair dismissal. Although the court dismissed the claim for unfair dismissal, the employee was awarded damages for violation of his right to privacy. Subjecting an employee to a polygraph examination is an excessive and therefore unlawful method of gathering evidence in respect of which the employer bears the burden of proof.

2013/3 Pay discrimination claimants entitled to see colleagues’ contracts, pay slips, bonus awards, despite privacy objections (FR)

Employees who feel discriminated against in terms of remuneration can bring a claim before a summary trial judge – prior to any trial on the merits of the case - and obtain disclosure of the pay slips of other employees to whom they compare themselves.

2013/3 Pay discrimination claimants entitled to see colleagues&rsquo; contracts, pay slips, bonus awards, despite privacy objections (FR)

Employees who feel discriminated against in terms of remuneration can bring a claim before a summary trial judge – prior to any trial on the merits of the case - and obtain disclosure of the pay slips of other employees to whom they compare themselves.

2012/49 UK protection against dismissal on grounds of political opinions inadequate (UK)

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has ruled that an employee dismissed for being a member of the far-right British National Party (BNP) did not have adequate redress under United Kingdom law. The relevant legislation was incompatible with the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the ‘Convention’) because it did not provide sufficient protection against dismissal on grounds of their political opinions or affiliations, including extreme views that “offend, shock or disturb”.

2012/49 UK protection against dismissal on grounds of political opinions inadequate (UK)

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has ruled that an employee dismissed for being a member of the far-right British National Party (BNP) did not have adequate redress under United Kingdom law. The relevant legislation was incompatible with the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the ‘Convention’) because it did not provide sufficient protection against dismissal on grounds of their political opinions or affiliations, including extreme views that “offend, shock or disturb”.

2012/53 Refusal to take drug test is just cause for dismissal (MT)

The plaintiff in this case, Mr Marco Cassar, was employed by the co- operative association...

2012/53 Refusal to take drug test is just cause for dismissal (MT)

The plaintiff in this case, Mr Marco Cassar, was employed by the co- operative association...

2012/55
Facebook posting not covered by right to free speech (NL)

A Facebook message to one’s ‘friends’ can lead to dismissal.

2012/55<br /> Facebook posting not covered by right to free speech (NL)

A Facebook message to one’s ‘friends’ can lead to dismissal.