2015/13 Implied choice of law in international employment contracts (AT)

Whether, and in favour of which jurisdiction, the parties to an employment contract with a cross-border dimension have made an implied choice of law, must be decided on a case by case basis. Essential indicators of an implied choice of law include direct references in the employment contract or related documents to concrete provisions and practices of a specific jurisdiction and the use of typical terms and clauses used by this jurisdiction

2015/16 Deduction of expenses from posted workers’ minimum wage allowed – but new legislation coming (NL)

The rule confirmed for now: an employer is entitled to deduct expenses for housing costs and health insurance premiums from the minimum wage payable to Polish posted workers, even if such deductions go beyond the deduction limits set in the enforcement policy of the Inspection of Social Affairs. Legislation proposed in order to put a stop to this.

2015/16 Deduction of expenses from posted workers’ minimum wage allowed – but new legislation coming (NL)

The rule confirmed for now: an employer is entitled to deduct expenses for housing costs and health insurance premiums from the minimum wage payable to Polish posted workers, even if such deductions go beyond the deduction limits set in the enforcement policy of the Inspection of Social Affairs. Legislation proposed in order to put a stop to this.

2014/30 Where to sue a foreign airline company? Another Ryanair case (NO)

The case concerns a dispute about whether a Norwegian district court in an employment case is the correct jurisdiction under the Lugano Convention¹ (Article 19(2)(a)) and section 4-5 (4) of the Norwegian Dispute Act.

An Italian employee brought proceedings against Ryanair Limited before a Norwegian District Court claiming that she was a permanent employee of the airline. The District Court concluded that the dispute did not have sufficient links to Norway and dismissed the case. The Court of Appeal overruled the District Court’s decision. On appeal, the Supreme Court Appeals Committee upheld the Court of Appeal's decision finding that Norwegian courts have jurisdiction in the case concerned.

2014/30 Where to sue a foreign airline company? Another Ryanair case (NO)

The case concerns a dispute about whether a Norwegian district court in an employment case is the correct jurisdiction under the Lugano Convention¹ (Article 19(2)(a)) and section 4-5 (4) of the Norwegian Dispute Act.

An Italian employee brought proceedings against Ryanair Limited before a Norwegian District Court claiming that she was a permanent employee of the airline. The District Court concluded that the dispute did not have sufficient links to Norway and dismissed the case. The Court of Appeal overruled the District Court’s decision. On appeal, the Supreme Court Appeals Committee upheld the Court of Appeal's decision finding that Norwegian courts have jurisdiction in the case concerned.

2014/26 French Supreme Court rejects E101 posting certificates (FR)

The French Supreme Court has confirmed the criminal convictions of two budget airlines (Vueling and easyJet) for “undeclared work”, on the grounds that they wrongfully applied the EU regulations on the posting of workers, thereby illegally keeping their France-based staff out of the French social security scheme. The airline companies argued that they did not declare their employees to the French social security scheme as the employees concerned were posted workers who benefited from the exemption from the French social security system, as confirmed by the delivery of E101 (now A1) posting certificates. The Court held that the airlines’ activities were entirely oriented towards national territory, and carried out on a regular, stable and continuous basis or through infrastructures located in national territory. The airlines could not therefore rely on the E101-certificates.

2014/26 French Supreme Court rejects E101 posting certificates (FR)

The French Supreme Court has confirmed the criminal convictions of two budget airlines (Vueling and easyJet) for “undeclared work”, on the grounds that they wrongfully applied the EU regulations on the posting of workers, thereby illegally keeping their France-based staff out of the French social security scheme. The airline companies argued that they did not declare their employees to the French social security scheme as the employees concerned were posted workers who benefited from the exemption from the French social security system, as confirmed by the delivery of E101 (now A1) posting certificates. The Court held that the airlines’ activities were entirely oriented towards national territory, and carried out on a regular, stable and continuous basis or through infrastructures located in national territory. The airlines could not therefore rely on the E101-certificates.

2014/28 Employer may not delegate duty to have wage records on hand (AT)

Any employer established in a foreign country is required to keep readily available, in German, the documents that are required to verify the remuneration of employees pursuant to Austrian law. These documents must be kept at the place of work in Austria during the period when the employee is actually working there. The employer may not delegate this duty to employees by instructing them to keep the documents with them.

2014/28 Employer may not delegate duty to have wage records on hand (AT)

Any employer established in a foreign country is required to keep readily available, in German, the documents that are required to verify the remuneration of employees pursuant to Austrian law. These documents must be kept at the place of work in Austria during the period when the employee is actually working there. The employer may not delegate this duty to employees by instructing them to keep the documents with them.

2014/11 Deduction of expenses from posted workers’ minimum wage allowed (NL)

An employer (in this case, a temporary employment agency) was entitled to deduct expenses for housing costs and health insurance premiums from the minimum wage payable to two Polish posted workers, even though such deductions went beyond the deduction limits set in the enforcement policy of the Inspection of Social Affairs.