<p><strong>2015/48 Supreme Court clarifies definition and scope of &lsquo;customer protection&rsquo; clause (FR)</strong></p>

A clause preventing a former employee, for a fixed period of time, from dealing directly or indirectly, with his former employer’s clients is a non-compete clause and must, therefore, meet certain requirements established by French case law, in order to be valid. A former employee who refrains from competing against his former employer on account of an invalid non-compete obligation, believing it to be valid, is entitled to compensation.

2015/23 Negative freedom of association does not preclude employer from paying union members more (DK)

In Denmark, there is freedom of association in the labour market. This principle is laid down in the Danish Freedom of Association Act and in Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Freedom of association means, among other things, that employers are prevented from deciding not to hire or to dismiss an employee because the employee is, or is not, a member of a trade union. During employment, however, the Danish Freedom of Association Act does not prohibit benefits from being awarded exclusively to members of a trade union that is a party to the applicable collective agreement.

<strong>2015/23 Negative freedom of association does not preclude employer from paying union members more (DK)</strong>

In Denmark, there is freedom of association in the labour market. This principle is laid down in the Danish Freedom of Association Act and in Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Freedom of association means, among other things, that employers are prevented from deciding not to hire or to dismiss an employee because the employee is, or is not, a member of a trade union. During employment, however, the Danish Freedom of Association Act does not prohibit benefits from being awarded exclusively to members of a trade union that is a party to the applicable collective agreement.

2015/31 Constitutional Court, reversing precedent, prohibits suspension pending criminal investigation (RO)

Article 52(b) of the Romanian Labour Code allows an employer to suspend an employee against whom it has filed a criminal complaint, without pay. The Constitutional Court, reversing settled case-law, has recently ruled that Articl 52(b) is unconstitutional.

<strong>2015/31 Constitutional Court, reversing precedent, prohibits suspension pending criminal investigation (RO)</strong>

Article 52(b) of the Romanian Labour Code allows an employer to suspend an employee against whom it has filed a criminal complaint, without pay. The Constitutional Court, reversing settled case-law, has recently ruled that Articl 52(b) is unconstitutional.

2015/51 An order to perform other work can constitute harassment, even if the work falls within job description (CZ)

The employer is authorised to assign work that is within the agreed type of work set out in the employment contract to employees, in accordance with the employer’s needs. However, at the same time, the exercise of this right must not be used to intimidate the employee in ‘revenge’ for the employee having defended his or her rights previously.  

<p><strong>2015/51 An order to perform other work can constitute harassment, even if the work falls within job description (CZ)</strong></p>

The employer is authorised to assign work that is within the agreed type of work set out in the employment contract to employees, in accordance with the employer’s needs. However, at the same time, the exercise of this right must not be used to intimidate the employee in ‘revenge’ for the employee having defended his or her rights previously.  

2015/34 Employee who resigns for ‘good cause’ bears burden of proof in respect of the cause (LA)

An employee of a company who is also a member of its Management Board has two capacities, that of employee and that of Board member, even where there is one single contract that covers the employee’s work in both capacities. As far as termination is concerned, each capacity is governed by its own set of rules. Therefore, if such an employee claims compensation for having had to resign with immediate effect for ‘good cause’, the court must assess each element of the ‘good cause’ according to the appropriate set of rules. It is generally the employee that bears the burden of proof that he or she had good cause to resign with immediate effect. The fact that the employee was (allegedly) unlawfully suspended does not satisfy that proof.

<strong>2015/34 Employee who resigns for &lsquo;good cause&rsquo; bears burden of proof in respect of the cause (LA)</strong>

An employee of a company who is also a member of its Management Board has two capacities, that of employee and that of Board member, even where there is one single contract that covers the employee’s work in both capacities. As far as termination is concerned, each capacity is governed by its own set of rules. Therefore, if such an employee claims compensation for having had to resign with immediate effect for ‘good cause’, the court must assess each element of the ‘good cause’ according to the appropriate set of rules. It is generally the employee that bears the burden of proof that he or she had good cause to resign with immediate effect. The fact that the employee was (allegedly) unlawfully suspended does not satisfy that proof.

2015/38 The Workplace Relations Act 2015 (IR)

The Workplace Relations Act 2015 (the ‘Act’) was signed into law on 20 May 2015 and is due to commence on 1 October 2015. The Act introduces a long-awaited root-and-branch reform for resolving workplace disputes and enforcing employment law in Ireland

Employees and employers will no longer have to navigate through a maze of various tribunals, courts, appeals procedures, time limits and enforcement procedures. The current system will be simplified by providing one single point of entry for employment disputes and one sole route of appeal.