2013/16 Bundesarbeitsgericht, applying Süzen, holds that only actual takeover of staff, not an offer to do so, is relevant (GE)

A security company lost its contract to a competitor. The competitor offered employment to all of the employees involved, albeit at a lower salary. Half of the employees accepted the offer and were hired by the competitor. One of the remaining employees claimed that the service provision change constituted a transfer of undertaking and that he had therefore become an employee of the competitor at his former salary level. The court found that the service provision change did not constitute a transfer of undertaking, given that the activity in question was labour-intensive and that only half of the employees involved in that activity went across to the competitor. Interestingly, the Bundesarbeitsgericht considered the fact that the competitor offered employment to all of the employees involved in the activity to be irrelevant.

2013/16 Bundesarbeitsgericht, applying Süzen, holds that only actual takeover of staff, not an offer to do so, is relevant (GE)

A security company lost its contract to a competitor. The competitor offered employment to all of the employees involved, albeit at a lower salary. Half of the employees accepted the offer and were hired by the competitor. One of the remaining employees claimed that the service provision change constituted a transfer of undertaking and that he had therefore become an employee of the competitor at his former salary level. The court found that the service provision change did not constitute a transfer of undertaking, given that the activity in question was labour-intensive and that only half of the employees involved in that activity went across to the competitor. Interestingly, the Bundesarbeitsgericht considered the fact that the competitor offered employment to all of the employees involved in the activity to be irrelevant.

2012/12: Offshore workers can be required to take annual leave during onshore field breaks (UK)

Offshore workers in the oil and gas industry brought an action claiming that, in not being allowed to take annual leave during periods when they were rostered for offshore work, they were being denied their entitlement to annual leave under the Working Time Regulations 1998 (the “WTR”). The WTR implement the Working Time Directive 93/104/EC (now consolidated as Directive 2003/88/EC, the “WTD”). The Supreme Court rejected the employees’ argument and held that onshore field breaks could be used for statutory holiday entitlement. It also refused a request for a reference to the ECJ for a decision on the meaning of “annual leave” under the WTD.

2012/12: Offshore workers can be required to take annual leave during onshore field breaks (UK)

Offshore workers in the oil and gas industry brought an action claiming that, in not being allowed to take annual leave during periods when they were rostered for offshore work, they were being denied their entitlement to annual leave under the Working Time Regulations 1998 (the “WTR”). The WTR implement the Working Time Directive 93/104/EC (now consolidated as Directive 2003/88/EC, the “WTD”). The Supreme Court rejected the employees’ argument and held that onshore field breaks could be used for statutory holiday entitlement. It also refused a request for a reference to the ECJ for a decision on the meaning of “annual leave” under the WTD.

2012/3: Age was not a factor (DK)

A 55-year-old temp applied for a vacant permanent position in her department. When the employer decided not to consider her for the position, the temp was convinced it was because of her age. The employer explained that the decision was based on a lack of personal qualities. The Supreme Court agreed with the employer and, accordingly, did not find that the principle of equal treatment had been breached.

2012/3: Age was not a factor (DK)

A 55-year-old temp applied for a vacant permanent position in her department. When the employer decided not to consider her for the position, the temp was convinced it was because of her age. The employer explained that the decision was based on a lack of personal qualities. The Supreme Court agreed with the employer and, accordingly, did not find that the principle of equal treatment had been breached.

2012/13: Clarification of “closure of section” in relation to collective redundancy (PT)

An employee of a multinational group that experienced a downturn and carried out a collective redundancy, challenged the lawfulness of his redundancy. He claimed the grounds used by the employer were false because the section in which he used to work had not been closed down. The Supreme Court found the redundancy to have been lawful.

2012/13: Clarification of “closure of section” in relation to collective redundancy (PT)

An employee of a multinational group that experienced a downturn and carried out a collective redundancy, challenged the lawfulness of his redundancy. He claimed the grounds used by the employer were false because the section in which he used to work had not been closed down. The Supreme Court found the redundancy to have been lawful.

ECJ 15 December 2011, case C-257/10 (Försäkringskassan - v - Elisabeth Bergström), Social security

Mrs Bergström lived and worked in Switzerland for eight years. Her daughter was born there...

ECJ 15 December 2011, case C-257/10 (Försäkringskassan - v - Elisabeth Bergström), Social security

Mrs Bergström lived and worked in Switzerland for eight years. Her daughter was born there...