ECJ 23 April 2020, Case C-710/18 (Land Niedersachsen (Périodes antérieures d’activité pertinente)), Other forms of free movement, Terms of employment

ECJ 23 April 2020, Case C-710/18 (Land Niedersachsen (Périodes antérieures d’activité pertinente)), Other forms of free movement, Terms of employment

2018/20 Labour Court sets out employers’ equal treatment obligations following the transfer of a business (FI)

The Finnish Labour Court recently decided a case about the transfer of a business and the associated obligation to harmonise employees' salaries. The Court held that the employer had not shown good reasons for continuing to pay different salaries to employees with equivalent responsibilities long after the transfer.

2018/20 Labour Court sets out employers’ equal treatment obligations following the transfer of a business (FI)

The Finnish Labour Court recently decided a case about the transfer of a business and the associated obligation to harmonise employees' salaries. The Court held that the employer had not shown good reasons for continuing to pay different salaries to employees with equivalent responsibilities long after the transfer.

2018/19 Mobility clause precise enough in scope, even when covering possible future locations within France (FR)

A mobility clause must be sufficiently precise, but this condition can still be fulfilled even if the clause tries to cover both current and possible future locations of the company, provided any future locations are still within France and provided any change of location is justified by the needs of the business.

2018/19 Mobility clause precise enough in scope, even when covering possible future locations within France (FR)

A mobility clause must be sufficiently precise, but this condition can still be fulfilled even if the clause tries to cover both current and possible future locations of the company, provided any future locations are still within France and provided any change of location is justified by the needs of the business.

2017/25 Company practice versus collective bargaining agreement in the formation of acquired rights (PT)

The Supreme Court of Justice recently decided that the amount of time a practice has been observed in a collective bargaining agreement (in this case, four years) was not relevant to the acquisition of an entitlement. The entitlement in the case at hand was a public holiday on Shrove Tuesday.

2017/25 Company practice versus collective bargaining agreement in the formation of acquired rights (PT)

The Supreme Court of Justice recently decided that the amount of time a practice has been observed in a collective bargaining agreement (in this case, four years) was not relevant to the acquisition of an entitlement. The entitlement in the case at hand was a public holiday on Shrove Tuesday.

2017/8 The importance of complying with the appropriate procedure when unilaterally amending material terms of employment, as an alternative to termination (FI)

Following consultations with its employees in accordance with the Finnish Codetermination Act (334/2007), a company informed the employees that it would close down its current office premises and move its operations, including all of its employees, to another location. An employee, whose employment contract expressly stipulated the location of the old office as the fixed place of work, refused to transfer and did not arrive at the new place of work after the transfer. The company considered the employee’s absence unjustified and terminated her employment with immediate effect. The Supreme Court held that an employer can, as an alternative to termination of employment, unilaterally amend material terms of employment provided it notifies the employees sufficiently clearly of the terms being amended, the time when the new terms would come into effect, the grounds for termination, and the consequences of not accepting the amendments.

2017/8 The importance of complying with the appropriate procedure when unilaterally amending material terms of employment, as an alternative to termination (FI)

Following consultations with its employees in accordance with the Finnish Codetermination Act (334/2007), a company informed the employees that it would close down its current office premises and move its operations, including all of its employees, to another location. An employee, whose employment contract expressly stipulated the location of the old office as the fixed place of work, refused to transfer and did not arrive at the new place of work after the transfer. The company considered the employee’s absence unjustified and terminated her employment with immediate effect. The Supreme Court held that an employer can, as an alternative to termination of employment, unilaterally amend material terms of employment provided it notifies the employees sufficiently clearly of the terms being amended, the time when the new terms would come into effect, the grounds for termination, and the consequences of not accepting the amendments.