EELA Updates

Case report

2014-10-13

Cyprus

2015/12 Financial difficulties cannot justify unilateral variations of salary and benefits (CY)

Unilateral variations by the employer of basic employment terms may be construed as a breach of the employment relationship, giving the employee the right to either “stand and sue” or resign and claim constructive dismissal. If the employee does not resign, the court may decide that all employment terms and benefits should be restored. If, however, the employee resigns, the court may grant compensation for unlawful (constructive) dismissal. Note that if the employee does not resign, he or she should make a claim immediately, as a long period before claiming may be considered to show implied acceptance of the variations.

Nicosia Employment Court, 2014-10-13

Summary

2014-10-13

2015/12 Financial difficulties cannot justify unilateral variations of salary and benefits (CY)

Unilateral variations by the employer of basic employment terms may be construed as a breach of the employment relationship, giving the employee the right to either “stand and sue” or resign and claim constructive dismissal. If the employee does not resign, the court may decide that all employment terms and benefits should be restored. If, however, the employee resigns, the court may grant compensation for unlawful (constructive) dismissal. Note that if the employee does not resign, he or she should make a claim immediately, as a long period before claiming may be considered to show implied acceptance of the variations.

Nicosia Employment Court, 2014-10-13

Case report

2014-07-22

United Kingdom

2014/48 Court should not add new words to a clearly drafted restrictive covenant (UK)

The Court of Appeal has overturned a decision of the High Court to add words into a non-competition covenant in an employee’s contract so that it could be enforced by the employer. Where the meaning of a restriction is clear a court should not interpret it by adding additional words, even if this means the covenant will not be enforceable.

Court of Appeal, 2014-07-22

Summary

2014-07-22

2014/48 Court should not add new words to a clearly drafted restrictive covenant (UK)

The Court of Appeal has overturned a decision of the High Court to add words into a non-competition covenant in an employee’s contract so that it could be enforced by the employer. Where the meaning of a restriction is clear a court should not interpret it by adding additional words, even if this means the covenant will not be enforceable.

Court of Appeal, 2014-07-22

Case report

2012-06-06

France

2012/24: Supreme Court applies concept of indirect gender discrimination for the first time (FR)

The French Supreme Court has recently held that a national pension institution’s decision to reject an application by social workers to be affiliated with that scheme amounted to indirect discrimination, because social workers in the sector in question were predominantly women while some affiliated workers holding positions with a similar level of responsibilities within that same sector were predominantly men. For the Supreme Court, the need to ensure consistent treatment with social workers in other sectors was not a relevant consideration.

Cour de cassation (French Supreme Court), 2012-06-06

Summary

2012-06-06

2012/24: Supreme Court applies concept of indirect gender discrimination for the first time (FR)

The French Supreme Court has recently held that a national pension institution’s decision to reject an application by social workers to be affiliated with that scheme amounted to indirect discrimination, because social workers in the sector in question were predominantly women while some affiliated workers holding positions with a similar level of responsibilities within that same sector were predominantly men. For the Supreme Court, the need to ensure consistent treatment with social workers in other sectors was not a relevant consideration.

Cour de cassation (French Supreme Court), 2012-06-06

Case report

2012-01-01

Greece

2012/54 Economic woes justify 20% salary cut (GR)

The employer’s unilateral reduction of the employee’s salary was considered lawful and not abusive, since it was done in the context of the exercise of the employer’s managerial rights, by reason of the economic difficulties the company faced.

First Instance Court of Thessaloniki

Summary

2012-01-01

2012/54 Economic woes justify 20% salary cut (GR)

The employer’s unilateral reduction of the employee’s salary was considered lawful and not abusive, since it was done in the context of the exercise of the employer’s managerial rights, by reason of the economic difficulties the company faced.

First Instance Court of Thessaloniki

Case report

2011-05-27

United Kingdom

2011/60: Dismissal for refusing pay cut may be fair provided employer has sound business reasons and acts reasonably (UK)

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (‘EAT’) has confirmed that it may be fair for an employer to dismiss an employee for refusing to agree to reduction in pay if it has good business reasons for implementing the change and acts reasonably in the circumstances. The focus in such cases should be on the reasonableness or otherwise of the employer’s behaviour rather than the reasonableness of the employee’s refusal to accept the new terms.

Employment Appeal Tribunal, 2011-05-27

Summary

2011-05-27

2011/60: Dismissal for refusing pay cut may be fair provided employer has sound business reasons and acts reasonably (UK)

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (‘EAT’) has confirmed that it may be fair for an employer to dismiss an employee for refusing to agree to reduction in pay if it has good business reasons for implementing the change and acts reasonably in the circumstances. The focus in such cases should be on the reasonableness or otherwise of the employer’s behaviour rather than the reasonableness of the employee’s refusal to accept the new terms.

Employment Appeal Tribunal, 2011-05-27