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

Case report

2010-12-22

Finland

2011/14: Employer may not deny bonus to employees who participate in an unlawful strike (FI)

It was deemed discriminatory and a breach of the employer’s duty to respect employees’ freedom of association for an employer to refuse to pay bonuses to employees who had participated in unlawful trade union strikes. However, this did not entitle the employees to separate compensation for discrimination.

Supreme Court of Finland, 2010-12-22

Summary

2010-12-22

2011/14: Employer may not deny bonus to employees who participate in an unlawful strike (FI)

It was deemed discriminatory and a breach of the employer’s duty to respect employees’ freedom of association for an employer to refuse to pay bonuses to employees who had participated in unlawful trade union strikes. However, this did not entitle the employees to separate compensation for discrimination.

Supreme Court of Finland, 2010-12-22

Court watch

2010-10-05

ECtHR 5 October 2010, (Kopke – v – German), Application no. 420/07, Fundamental rights

The European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) has recently considered these cases, which have a direct and indirect impact on employment law. Kopke raises issues of an employer using covert surveillance on an employee to investigate and prevent theft. Lalmahomed was a criminal case, but illuminates the strict requirements of the need for a fair procedure. Cudak is a case in which the right to bring a claim for unfair dismissal was given primacy over the public international law principle of state immunity.

European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), 2010-10-05

Summary

2010-10-05

ECtHR 5 October 2010, (Kopke – v – German), Application no. 420/07, Fundamental rights

The European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) has recently considered these cases, which have a direct and indirect impact on employment law. Kopke raises issues of an employer using covert surveillance on an employee to investigate and prevent theft. Lalmahomed was a criminal case, but illuminates the strict requirements of the need for a fair procedure. Cudak is a case in which the right to bring a claim for unfair dismissal was given primacy over the public international law principle of state immunity.

European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), 2010-10-05

Court watch

2010-09-23

ECtHR 23 September 2010 (Obst – v – Germany) Application no. 425/03, Fundamental rights

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) recently considered these two cases about the dismissal of an employee from a religious organisation. The issue was whether these dismissals were compatible with Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“European Convention on Human Rights” or ECHR), which guarantees the right to respect for private and family life. Although both cases involved Church bodies, the rulings have wider implications for all ideological employments, including the scope of Article 4 of Directive 2000/78/EC. This provision allows Member States to maintain or adopt legislation “pursuant to which, in the case of occupational activities within churches and other public or private organisations the ethos of which is based on religion or belief, a difference of treatment based on a person’s religion or belief shall not constitute discrimination where, by reason of the nature of these activities or of the context in which they are carried out, a person’s religion or belief constitute a genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirement, having regard to the organisation’s ethos”.

European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), 2010-09-23

Summary

2010-09-23

ECtHR 23 September 2010 (Obst – v – Germany) Application no. 425/03, Fundamental rights

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) recently considered these two cases about the dismissal of an employee from a religious organisation. The issue was whether these dismissals were compatible with Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“European Convention on Human Rights” or ECHR), which guarantees the right to respect for private and family life. Although both cases involved Church bodies, the rulings have wider implications for all ideological employments, including the scope of Article 4 of Directive 2000/78/EC. This provision allows Member States to maintain or adopt legislation “pursuant to which, in the case of occupational activities within churches and other public or private organisations the ethos of which is based on religion or belief, a difference of treatment based on a person’s religion or belief shall not constitute discrimination where, by reason of the nature of these activities or of the context in which they are carried out, a person’s religion or belief constitute a genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirement, having regard to the organisation’s ethos”.

European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), 2010-09-23

Case report

2010-05-04

Netherlands

2010/69: When is a strike so ‘purely political’ that a court can prohibit it? (NL)

A collective action, such as a strike, that aims to influence government plans, but targets others (e.g. employers) is not only subject to national law, but also to European law as applied by the national courts, which much ascertain whether the collective action is suitable for ensuring the achievement of the objective pursued and does not go beyond what is necessary to attain that objective.

Gerechtshof Amsterdam (Court of Appeal Amsterdam), 2010-05-04

Summary

2010-05-04

2010/69: When is a strike so ‘purely political’ that a court can prohibit it? (NL)

A collective action, such as a strike, that aims to influence government plans, but targets others (e.g. employers) is not only subject to national law, but also to European law as applied by the national courts, which much ascertain whether the collective action is suitable for ensuring the achievement of the objective pursued and does not go beyond what is necessary to attain that objective.

Gerechtshof Amsterdam (Court of Appeal Amsterdam), 2010-05-04

Case report

2010-02-23

Italy

2010/70: Illegal monitoring of employees makes collected evidence of computer abuse inadmissible in dismissal proceedings (IT)

An employee was discovered having repeatedly accessed the Internet during working time and was dismissed on the grounds that such computer use was in breach of the company’s regulations. The employer had found out about the transgression with the aid of ‘Superscout’ software. This made the discovery illegal. Hence the evidence of the transgression was inadmissible and the dismissal was ineffective.

Corte di cassatione (Italian Supreme Court), 2010-02-23

Summary

2010-02-23

2010/70: Illegal monitoring of employees makes collected evidence of computer abuse inadmissible in dismissal proceedings (IT)

An employee was discovered having repeatedly accessed the Internet during working time and was dismissed on the grounds that such computer use was in breach of the company’s regulations. The employer had found out about the transgression with the aid of ‘Superscout’ software. This made the discovery illegal. Hence the evidence of the transgression was inadmissible and the dismissal was ineffective.

Corte di cassatione (Italian Supreme Court), 2010-02-23