Search result: 29 articles

x

    A decision taken by an employer based on gender which respects the national legislation was considered discriminatory based on EU legislation.


Andreea Suciu
Andreea Suciu is the Managing Partner Suciu I The Employment Law Firm (https://suciu-employmentlaw.ro/).

Gabriela Ion
Gabriela Ion is an associate at Suciu I The Employment Law Firm (https://suciu-employmentlaw.ro/).
Case Reports

2019/9 The right to object against a transfer in case of incorrect information is not unlimited (GE)

Journal European Employment Law Cases, Issue 1 2019
Keywords Transfer of undertaking, Employees who transfer/refuse to transfer
Authors Nina Stephan
AbstractAuthor's information

    According to German law, every employee has the right to object to the transfer of their employment relationship to the transferee in the case of a transfer of business. However, the right to object is not unlimited. The Federal Labour Court (Bundesarbeitsgericht (‘BAG’)) held that an employee who had worked for the transferee for seven years had lost this right if they had been informed about the transfer.


Nina Stephan
Nina Stephan is an attorney-at-law at Luther Rechtsanwaltgesellschaft mbH
Case Reports

2018/6 Dismissals anticipating a transfer of undertaking validated (HU)

Journal European Employment Law Cases, Issue 1 2018
Keywords Dismissal/severance payment, Transfer of undertaking
Authors Gabriella Ormai
AbstractAuthor's information

    The Hungarian Supreme Court has held that within the context of the transfer of an undertaking, the transferee can terminate employment relationships immediately after the transfer for operational reasons and can commence preparations to that effect before the transfer.


Gabriella Ormai
Gabriella Ormai is a managing partner with Ormai és Társai CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP Ügyvédi Iroda in Budapest, https://cms.law/en/HUN/Office/Budapest.

    A clause in a collective bargaining agreement stipulating that overtime premiums for part time employees are only payable if their monthly working hours exceed those of a full-time employee is not discriminatory.


Paul Schreiner
Paul Schreiner is a partner with Luther Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH in Essen, www.luther-lawfirm.com.

    In February 2017, a female worker was served notice of termination of her employment contract for economic reasons (odpoved pogodbe o zaposlitvi iz poslovnih razlogov). The reasons for the termination were: (i) a substantial decrease in orders, (ii) reduced realisation and (iii) reduced demand for particular products. In particular, the company had lost one of its clients in the automotive industry. The worker brought an action claiming that (i) the reason for the termination was not logical (this included challenging the arguments made in the termination letter because the business results in 2012, when the notice was served, were better than in 2011); (ii) the employer continuously requested employees to work overtime (but note that the overtime was within the statutory limits); and (iii) she had been discriminated against and the working conditions were poor in various respects. The first and second instance courts denied her claim and found the termination lawful.


Petra Smolnikar
Petra Smolnikar is the founder and managing partner of PETRA SMOLNIKAR LAW, in Ljubljana, Slovenia: http://petrasmolnikarlaw.eu.

    The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has adopted a new approach to the burden of proof in discrimination cases. Up to now, the courts have held that the claimant must, in the first instance, prove sufficient facts from which (in the absence of any other explanation) an inference of discrimination can be drawn. Once the claimant has established these facts, the burden of proof shifts to the respondent to show that he or she did not breach the provisions of the Act. The EAT has now said that courts should consider all of the evidence (both the claimant’s and the respondent’s) when making its finding of facts, in order to determine whether or not a prima facie case of discrimination has been made out. It is then open to the respondent to demonstrate that there was no discrimination. This is an important development in how the burden of proof is dealt with in discrimination cases. It clarifies that it is not only the claimant’s evidence which will be scrutinised in determining whether the burden of proof has shifted, but also the respondent’s evidence (or lack thereof).


Hannah Price
Hannah Price is a Legal Director at Lewis Silkin LLP.

    The Curia (Hungarian Supreme Court) stated in its ruling that length of service is not a protected characteristic under discrimination law. Length of employment cannot be considered as a core feature of the individual based on which he or she would belong to a specific group, as it is a result of his or her own actions. It therefore cannot be treated as a ‘miscellaneous’ ground for the purposes of the Hungarian Equal Treatment Act. Further, length of service cannot be linked to age discrimination. The length of service of an employee is not directly connected to age, therefore treatment of an employee based on length of service with a specific organisation cannot be considered age discriminatory.
    A claim based on discrimination must be supported by a comparator. Employees with different educational backgrounds and jobs with different the educational requirements, are not comparable for the purposes of equal treatment law.


Gabriella Ormai
Gabriella Ormai is the managing partner of the Budapest office of CMS Cameron McKenna LLP (www.cms-cmck.com).
Case Reports

2016/44 Is there a genuine remedy for the employer’s failure to consult? (HU)

Journal European Employment Law Cases, Issue 3 2016
Keywords Employee representatives/collective bargaining, obligation to consult
Authors Gabriella Ormai and Peter Ban
AbstractAuthor's information

    During negotiations for a collective bargaining agreement, the employer stopped consulting the employee representatives because a sectorial collective bargaining agreement had entered into force that also applied to the employer. After this, the trade union requested an appointment with the employer on a specific date and proposed an agenda for the meeting, including consultation on the impact of the sectorial collective bargaining agreement on the employees. The employer refused to meet on the requested date. The trade union challenged this via the Labour Court. The first and second instance courts turned down the trade union’s claim and confirmed the employer had acted lawfully. The Curia (the Supreme Court) established that the employer had breached its obligation to consult – an obligation deriving from the Labour Code which implemented Directive 2002/14 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees – but at the same time it refused to order the employer to proceed with the consultations, leaving the trade union without an effective remedy.


Gabriella Ormai

Peter Ban
Gabriella Ormai is the managing partner of the Budapest office, Peter Ban is a senior counsel of CMS Cameron McKenna LLP, www.cms-cmck.com.

    In accordance with EU law, the prohibition against gender-based discrimination (in this case: dismissal relating to pregnancy) cannot be limited to employment relationships as defined in national law: it must also apply to other types of legal relationship, where one party provides services to another party for consideration, for an open-ended period of time under the supervision of a principal.


Gabriella Ormai
Gabriella Ormai is a partner and

Péter Bán
Péter Bán is senior counsel with CMS Cameron McKenna LLP, www.cms-cmck.com.
Showing 1 - 20 of 29 results
« 1
You can search full text for articles by entering your search term in the search field. If you click the search button the search results will be shown on a fresh page where the search results can be narrowed down by category or year.