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

Case report

2011-05-10

Czech Republic

2011/45 No unilateral change of working time (CZ)

A contract that specifies the employee’s number of working hours per week (in this case, 37.5) and/or her work schedule (in this case, a variable three-shift schedule) limits the employer’s ability to make use of its statutory right to determine those terms of employment at its own discretion.

Nejvyšší soud (Czech Supreme Court), 2011-05-10

Summary

2011-05-10

2011/45 No unilateral change of working time (CZ)

A contract that specifies the employee’s number of working hours per week (in this case, 37.5) and/or her work schedule (in this case, a variable three-shift schedule) limits the employer’s ability to make use of its statutory right to determine those terms of employment at its own discretion.

Nejvyšší soud (Czech Supreme Court), 2011-05-10

Case report

2010-12-07

Netherlands

2011/11: Failure by employer to provide employee with statement of employment particulars does not reverse burden of proof (NL)

The employment contract was silent on the weekly number of hours to be worked. The employee claimed he was employed full time (40 hours per week), whereas the employer claimed that the agreement was for work to be performed on an “on-call” basis. Who carried the burden of proof? The fact that the employer breached its duty to provide the employee with a written statement of employment particulars was insufficient to warrant shifting the burden of proof from the employee to the employer.

Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden (Court of Appeal Arnhem-Leeuwarden), 2010-12-07

Summary

2010-12-07

2011/11: Failure by employer to provide employee with statement of employment particulars does not reverse burden of proof (NL)

The employment contract was silent on the weekly number of hours to be worked. The employee claimed he was employed full time (40 hours per week), whereas the employer claimed that the agreement was for work to be performed on an “on-call” basis. Who carried the burden of proof? The fact that the employer breached its duty to provide the employee with a written statement of employment particulars was insufficient to warrant shifting the burden of proof from the employee to the employer.

Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden (Court of Appeal Arnhem-Leeuwarden), 2010-12-07

Case report

2010-11-16

Portugal

2011/32 Employer may amend performance-related pay scheme (PT)

A field salesperson was transferred to the employer’s shop for reasons of performance and internal restructuring. In addition, the employer amended the sales commission scheme, as a result of which the salesperson’s earnings dropped. The salesperson challenged both changes but, surprisingly, the court found in favour of the employer.

Tribunal da Trabalho Matosinhos (Labour Court Matosinhos), 2010-11-16

Summary

2010-11-16

2011/32 Employer may amend performance-related pay scheme (PT)

A field salesperson was transferred to the employer’s shop for reasons of performance and internal restructuring. In addition, the employer amended the sales commission scheme, as a result of which the salesperson’s earnings dropped. The salesperson challenged both changes but, surprisingly, the court found in favour of the employer.

Tribunal da Trabalho Matosinhos (Labour Court Matosinhos), 2010-11-16

Case report

2010-04-26

Portugal

2010/86: The need to protect one employee’s interests can justify unilaterally changing a colleague’s working times (PT)

An employer may unilaterally change an employee’s working times (from fixed hours to a shift schedule) if that is necessary to avoid harming another employee’s interests.

Tribunal da Relação do Porto (Court of Appeal, Porto) , 2010-04-26

Summary

2010-04-26

2010/86: The need to protect one employee’s interests can justify unilaterally changing a colleague’s working times (PT)

An employer may unilaterally change an employee’s working times (from fixed hours to a shift schedule) if that is necessary to avoid harming another employee’s interests.

Tribunal da Relação do Porto (Court of Appeal, Porto) , 2010-04-26

Case report

2010-03-19

Ireland

2010/64: Dismissal at age 65 implied term of employment and not in breach of Directive 2000/78 (IR)

An employee brought judicial review proceedings of a decision by her employer, the Health Service Executive (HSE), to terminate her employment upon her reaching the retirement age of 65. Although the employee was never furnished with a contract of employment, the Court held that a mandatory retirement age of 65 was an implied term of her contract of employment, and that the employer’s decision to terminate the employee’s employment on her reaching the age of 65 was lawful.

The High Court , 2010-03-19

Summary

2010-03-19

2010/64: Dismissal at age 65 implied term of employment and not in breach of Directive 2000/78 (IR)

An employee brought judicial review proceedings of a decision by her employer, the Health Service Executive (HSE), to terminate her employment upon her reaching the retirement age of 65. Although the employee was never furnished with a contract of employment, the Court held that a mandatory retirement age of 65 was an implied term of her contract of employment, and that the employer’s decision to terminate the employee’s employment on her reaching the age of 65 was lawful.

The High Court , 2010-03-19