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

Summary

2014-03-27

2014/32 Severance Pay is Salary (LA)

Severance compensation paid to an employee pursuant to section 112 of the Latvian Labour Law (e.g. where an employment contract is terminated on account of a headcount reduction) is covered by the concept of “work remuneration” (hereinafter “salary”) as defined in section 59 of the Labour Law, being “any other remuneration in relation to work”. This means that wrongly paid severance compensation can only be reclaimed on the basis of section 78 of the Labour Law and not on the basis of the general provisions of civil law. According to a recent Supreme Court decision, this in turn means that an employer cannot recover severance compensation paid to an employee based on a court judgment that has been enforced despite appeal and later overturned.

Latvijas Republikas Augstākās tiesas Civillietu departaments (Supreme Court of the Republic of Latvia, civil section), 2014-03-27

Case report

2014-02-19

Germany

2014/20 Equal pay for ‘temps’ - how to substantiate a claim (GE)

German law entitles ‘temps’ to equal payment unless there is a collective bargaining agreement that provides for a different salary for temps. To assert a claim regarding a difference in payment, the plaintiff needs to fulfil certain requirements. In three recent decisions, the BAG clarified how to substantiate such a claim.

Bundesarbeitsgericht (Federal Labour Court), 2014-02-19

Summary

2014-02-19

2014/20 Equal pay for ‘temps’ - how to substantiate a claim (GE)

German law entitles ‘temps’ to equal payment unless there is a collective bargaining agreement that provides for a different salary for temps. To assert a claim regarding a difference in payment, the plaintiff needs to fulfil certain requirements. In three recent decisions, the BAG clarified how to substantiate such a claim.

Bundesarbeitsgericht (Federal Labour Court), 2014-02-19

Case report

2014-01-07

United Kingdom

2014/27 Covert recordings of the private deliberations of grievance and disciplinary panels are admissible as evidence (UK)

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) has upheld a decision by the Employment Tribunal to the effect that covertly recorded private deliberations at disciplinary and grievance hearings should be admitted as evidence in a claim. The content of the private deliberations fell outside the panels’ area of “legitimate consideration”.  For that reason the Tribunal had been right to distinguish the case from previous case law, which stated that covertly recorded private deliberations should be excluded as evidence on public policy grounds

Employment Appeal Tribunal, 2014-01-07

Summary

2014-01-07

2014/27 Covert recordings of the private deliberations of grievance and disciplinary panels are admissible as evidence (UK)

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) has upheld a decision by the Employment Tribunal to the effect that covertly recorded private deliberations at disciplinary and grievance hearings should be admitted as evidence in a claim. The content of the private deliberations fell outside the panels’ area of “legitimate consideration”.  For that reason the Tribunal had been right to distinguish the case from previous case law, which stated that covertly recorded private deliberations should be excluded as evidence on public policy grounds

Employment Appeal Tribunal, 2014-01-07

Case report

2013-11-27

France

2014/9 Jurisdiction of French courts in case of transnational dispute (FR)

Where an employee works for stable periods, successively, in various countries, the jurisdiction of his last place of work should be used in the event of a dispute, provided it has been the “clear will of the parties” that the employee would carry out his activities in that place on a lasting basis.

Cour de cassation (French Supreme Court), 2013-11-27

Summary

2013-11-27

2014/9 Jurisdiction of French courts in case of transnational dispute (FR)

Where an employee works for stable periods, successively, in various countries, the jurisdiction of his last place of work should be used in the event of a dispute, provided it has been the “clear will of the parties” that the employee would carry out his activities in that place on a lasting basis.

Cour de cassation (French Supreme Court), 2013-11-27

Case report

2013-08-29

Germany

2014/63 Employer need not offer redundant worker job in foreign branch (GE)

The employer’s obligation to offer continued employment in order to avoid termination for operational reasons does not include the offer of vacant positions in foreign countries, including EU member states.

Bundesarbeitsgericht (Federal Labour Court), 2013-08-29

Summary

2013-08-29

2014/63 Employer need not offer redundant worker job in foreign branch (GE)

The employer’s obligation to offer continued employment in order to avoid termination for operational reasons does not include the offer of vacant positions in foreign countries, including EU member states.

Bundesarbeitsgericht (Federal Labour Court), 2013-08-29

Case report

2013-06-10

Romania

2013/45 Court may replace disciplinary sanction by milder sanction (RO)

A recent Supreme Court judgment has ended a controversy regarding the power of the courts to deal with disciplinary sanctions. Previously, some courts had held that the judiciary has the power to annul a disciplinary sanction imposed by an employer and challenged by the employee, but not to amend it. The Supreme Court has now ruled that courts may replace a disciplinary sanction by another milder sanction.

Inalta Curte de Casatie si Justitie (Romanian Supreme Court), 2013-06-10