The Craiova Court of Appeal has ruled that the continuous extensions of a fixed-term employment based on national provisions is not in accordance with the European jurisprudence. Relying on the findings of ECJ case C-614/15, the Craiova Court of Appeal made an exhaustive analysis of the relying arguments for subsequent extensions of fixed-term employments agreements for long periods of time and the objective reasons behind such use of contracts.

It is possible to provide a contracting authority with the option or even an obligation to exclude a tender participant from the contract award procedure where the exclusion ground at issue is established by one of the subcontractors. However, this cannot happen automatically.

The absence of severance compensation for interim civil servants is not contrary to Directive 1999/70.

In case of a transfer of undertaking involving multiple transferees, the rights and obligations arising from an employment contract may be divided between various transferees, if this is possible. If not (or if it is to the detriment of the employee), the transferees would be regarded as being responsible for any consequent termination under Article 4 of Directive 2001/23, even if this were to be initiated by the worker.

In Austria, a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) for bicycle deliverers has been in force since 1 January 2020. According to the contracting parties (the Austrian Chamber of Commerce and the Austrian Trade Union Federation), it is the first of its kind worldwide.¹x https://www.vida.at/cms/S03/S03_4.8.a/1342616918551/kollektivvertrag/strasse/weltweit-erster-kv-fuer-fahrradboten-abgeschlossen. On this occasion, this article examines the legal basis for employment in this sector and whether this long-awaited step will really lead to an improvement for bicycle deliverers.

Noten

• 1 https://www.vida.at/cms/S03/S03_4.8.a/1342616918551/kollektivvertrag/strasse/weltweit-erster-kv-fuer-fahrradboten-abgeschlossen.

Various of our academic board analysed employment law cases from last year. However, first, we start with some general remarks.

On 3 October 2019, in case C-274/18 (Schuch-Ghannadan), the ECJ held that a national regulation, which provides for different maximum total durations of successive fixed-term employment contracts for part-time workers on the one hand and full-time workers on the other, could result in a discrimination of part-time workers and an indirect discrimination of women.

While it is not strictly necessary to actually work in order to acquire leave entitlement under German law, the Federal Labour Court (Bundesarbeitsgericht – BAG) has ruled that during a sabbatical (unpaid special leave) the employee does not gain any entitlement to paid annual leave.

In a decision with implications for unfair dismissal law generally, the UK’s Supreme Court (SC) ruled that it is not always necessary for a dismissing manager to know about whistleblowing disclosures made by an employee in order for that dismissal to be automatically unfair.

Relying on the prohibition of age discrimination stemming from Directive 2000/78, the Brussels Labour Tribunal, in a judgment of 28 November 2019, ruled that an age limit of 25 for the recruitment of air traffic controllers constituted direct discrimination. Its decision was grounded on the fact that even if there are objective reasons related to air traffic safety which may justify setting an age limit for applicants, the employer must adduce concrete evidence based on scientific facts.

Clause 5 of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work applies also to workers who continuously occupy interim posts based on successive fixed-term contracts in the absence of a recruitment procedure.

In the context of a takeover of an activity which requires substantial operating resources, not transferring the substantial operating resources cannot necessarily preclude the classification as a transfer of an undertaking, since other factual circumstances make it possible to establish that the identity of the economic entity has been retained.

German provisions disregarding salary obtained under another jurisdiction when calculating unemployment benefits found contrary to Regulation 883/2004.

On 20 June 2019, Vilnius Regional Court in Lithuania (instance of appeal) delivered a decision in a case where the applicants claimed that a temporary employment agency, UAB Manpower Lit (the ‘Agency’), which recruited temporary workers (‘claimants’) for the European Institute for Gender Equality (‘EIGE’), paid them lower salaries than permanent staff. It was ruled that the Agency had discriminated against these workers by paying them lower salaries than they would have received if they had been recruited directly by EIGE. The Court also ordered the payment of pay arrears for a certain period to the temporary staff.