Search result: 10 articles

x
Case Reports

2019/51 Stand-by time from home is paid working time (RO)

Journal European Employment Law Cases, Issue 4 2019
Keywords Working time
Authors Andreea Suciu and Gabriela Ion
AbstractAuthor's information

    Stand-by time from home represents working time of medical personnel even for the periods when no medical activity was actually performed (no attendance at the hospital was required), the salary rights for such period being determined as a percentage of the hourly rate for the basic salary and the number of hours when stand-by time from home was performed.


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

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

    The Austrian Supreme Court has held that the employer must notify the Employment Service (AMS) when it is contemplating collective redundancies, even if they are carried by mutual agreement. The duty of notification is triggered if the employer proposes a mutual termination agreement to a relevant number of employees, provided the offer is binding and can be accepted by the employees within 30 days. If the employer fails to notify the AMS, any subsequent redundancies (or mutual terminations of employment occurring on the employer’s initiative) are void, even if effected after 30 days.


Andreas Tinhofer
Andreas Tinhofer is a partner at MOSATI Rechtsanwälte, www.mosati.at.

    The Court of Appeal has overruled the recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decision in Efobi – v – Royal Mail [2017] IRLR 956 (reported in EELC 2017/41), restoring the previous position that a claimant in a discrimination case has the initial burden of proof – which ‘shifts’ to the respondent to provide an explanation of why its conduct was non-discriminatory if a prima facie case is proven.
    The Court of Appeal disagreed with Mrs Justice Elisabeth Laing’s ruling in Efobi, that section136 of the Equality Act 2010 had made a substantial change to the law when it was introduced, on the basis that it could not be fair that a respondent should have to discharge the burden of proof without the claimant first showing that there is a case to be answered. Lord Singh ruled that it could not have been Parliament’s intention to remove this initial burden of proof when it enacted the Equality Act.


Kayleigh Williams
Kayleigh Williams is a paralegal at Lewis Silkin LLP.

    The transferee dismissed the plaintiff immediately upon the transfer, for business reasons. The plaintiff claimed the dismissal was invalid because the transferee did not consult the union representatives who were transferred. The Supreme Court held that, in the absence of a works council, the union representative has, by law, all rights and obligations with regard to information and consultation. Failure to abide by the information and consultation rules rendered the decision to dismiss invalid.


Dina Vlahov Buhin
Dina Vlahov Buhin is a lawyer with Vlahov Buhin & Šourek in cooperation with Schoenherr Attorneys at Law, www.schoenherr.eu.

    It is possible to make a claim for unlawful discrimination in respect of termination of an employment contract even if no claims has been made for unlawful termination.


Dr. Marcin Wujczyk
Dr. Marcin Wujczyk is attorney-at-law, Associated Professor at Jagiellonian University, specialising in labour law, partner at Ksizek Bigaj Wujczyk.

    Article 52(1)(a) of the Romanian Labour Code allows an employer to suspend, without pay, an employee under a disciplinary investigation. However, the Constitutional Court has recently ruled Article 52(1)(a) unconstitutional.


Andreea Suciu
Andreea Suciu is Head of Employment & Pensions with Noerr in Bucharest, www.noerr.com.

    A decision issued by the Constitutional Court on 3 March 2016 upholds a High Court decision on whether evidence obtained through video surveillance at the work place without previously informing the employee or the works council of the recording infringes employees’ privacy. The existence of cameras in the workplace was only made known via a sticker on the shop window, but the Constitutional Court found that it provided sufficient information to employees. The Court found that, as there was a prior suspicion of theft by the employee, temporary recording of the cashier area was lawful and did not require prior consent. The judgment sets out the criteria to be used to determine a fair balance between the competing interests of employee privacy and the employer’s right to compliance.


Sonia Cortes
Sonia Cortes is a partner with Abdón Pedrajas & Molero in Barcelona, www.abdonpedrajas.com. Special thanks to Isabel Ruano and Carla Baussa for their help in preparing this case report.

    Following the latest case law of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, it is not enough to state that an employee cannot work for a competitor during their employment. It is necessary to pay compensation in order for the non-compete obligation to be legally enforceable, because of the onerous nature of the obligation.


Inga Klimašauskienė
Inga Klimašauskienė is an Associate Partner at GLIMSTEDT in Vilnius, www.glimstedt.lt.

    The Supreme Court in this case establishes conditions to be met in order for the member of a Board of Directors to qualify as a self-employed “entrepreneur”. In light of these conditions, Directors must be considered to have the status of “individual contractor”, obligating them to pay increased social security contributions.


Marcin Wujczyk Ph.D.
Marcin Wujczyk, Ph.D., is a partner with Ksiazek & Bigaj in Krakow, www.ksiazeklegal.pl.
Showing all 10 results
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.