2016/3 Supreme Court allows transferee to differentiate between ‘own’ and acquired employees (PL)

Paying employees acquired by way of the transfer of an undertaking less than the transferee’s original staff not discriminatory. The Supreme Court recently came to this conclusion based on a rather daring interpretation of a provision of national law aimed at transposing an EU directive. Although Polish law obligates employers to treat employees who perform the same work equally regardless of personal characteristics, the provision at issue should be read more narrowly.

2016/3 Supreme Court allows transferee to differentiate between ‘own’ and acquired employees (PL)

Paying employees acquired by way of the transfer of an undertaking less than the transferee’s original staff not discriminatory. The Supreme Court recently came to this conclusion based on a rather daring interpretation of a provision of national law aimed at transposing an EU directive. Although Polish law obligates employers to treat employees who perform the same work equally regardless of personal characteristics, the provision at issue should be read more narrowly.

2016/4 Transferee liable for transferor’s overdue pension contributions (NL)

If both the transferor and transferee are affiliated to one and the same mandatory industry-level pension fund, the transferee is liable vis-à-vis that pension fund for pension contributions (premiums) due but not paid to that fund prior to the date of transfer. A judgment to this effect, which was reported in EELC in 2013/35, was recently confirmed on appeal.

2016/4 Transferee liable for transferor’s overdue pension contributions (NL)

If both the transferor and transferee are affiliated to one and the same mandatory industry-level pension fund, the transferee is liable vis-à-vis that pension fund for pension contributions (premiums) due but not paid to that fund prior to the date of transfer. A judgment to this effect, which was reported in EELC in 2013/35, was recently confirmed on appeal.

ECJ 26 November 2015, case C-509/14 (Administrador de Infraestructuras Ferroviarias (ADIF) - v - Luis Aira Pascual and others), Transfer of undertaking

ADIF is a public undertaking responsible for handling containers in the port of Bilbao. In 2008...

<strong>ECJ 26 November 2015, case C-509/14&nbsp;(Administrador de Infraestructuras Ferroviarias (ADIF) - v - Luis Aira Pascual and others), Transfer of undertaking</strong>

ADIF is a public undertaking responsible for handling containers in the port of Bilbao. In 2008...

ECJ 9 September 2015, case C-160/14 (Joao Filipe Ferreira da Silva e Brito and others - v - Estado português), Transfer of undertaking

The airline company AIA wound up on 19 February 1993. From 1 May 1993, its main shareholder TAP,...

<strong>ECJ 9 September 2015, case C-160/14&nbsp;(Joao Filipe Ferreira da Silva e Brito and others - v - Estado portugu&ecirc;s), Transfer of undertaking</strong>

The airline company AIA wound up on 19 February 1993. From 1 May 1993, its main shareholder TAP,...

2015/39 Care and support for residents of a specialised housing complex is asset-intensive (NO)

The City of Oslo terminated a service agreement with a private provider of monitoring and caring services to residents of a municipal social housing facility, and started to provide the services themselves. 

Five of the employees who were dismissed due to the termination, instituted proceedings against the City of Oslo claiming the arrangement constitute a transfer of undertaking pursuant to the Norwegian Working Environment Act (WEA) chapter 16 (which implements Directive 2001/23/EC in Norway).

The main questions were whether the monitoring services constituted an economic entity before the transfer, and if so, if the entity had retained its identity after the transfer to the City of Oslo. The Norwegian Supreme Court concluded that the arrangement did constitute a transfer of the undertaking.

<p><strong>2015/39 Care and support for residents of a specialised housing complex is asset-intensive (NO)</strong></p>

The City of Oslo terminated a service agreement with a private provider of monitoring and caring services to residents of a municipal social housing facility, and started to provide the services themselves. 

Five of the employees who were dismissed due to the termination, instituted proceedings against the City of Oslo claiming the arrangement constitute a transfer of undertaking pursuant to the Norwegian Working Environment Act (WEA) chapter 16 (which implements Directive 2001/23/EC in Norway).

The main questions were whether the monitoring services constituted an economic entity before the transfer, and if so, if the entity had retained its identity after the transfer to the City of Oslo. The Norwegian Supreme Court concluded that the arrangement did constitute a transfer of the undertaking.