A number of collective labour agreements unjustifiably have excluded allowances from holiday pay. Recently, social partners have had difficulties in repairing these flaws. Two recent cases demonstrate this, both similar claims but with different outcomes. This leaves social partners with the problem of how to proceed.

This is the first time we have produced a review of employment law cases from the previous year, based on analysis by various of our academic board members. But before looking at their findings, we would first like to make some general remarks.

The Dutch Cantonal judge prohibited a strike because the safety of passengers could not be guaranteed. At the hearing, which took place a few days after the Berlin Christmas market attacks, weight was given to the threat of terrorism. Nor is this the first time the threat of terrorism has been explicitly referred to by a Dutch court in a case concerning the right to strike.

EU employment protection is usually limited to “employees”, meaning that independent contractors are not covered. However, EU law often leaves it to Member States to determine the meaning of employee. The directives regulating transfers of undertakings, collective redundancies, written working conditions, information and consultation, part-time work, temporary agency workers etc. are all examples of protection covering only ‘employees’ as defined by each Member State.
Consequently, the interpretation of ‘employee’ at the national level determines whether protection in EU law applies. This case report concerns the distinction between an independent contractor and employee. The question was whether a support worker for a child needing extra care and support should be considered as employed by Ålesund municipality. The majority (4-1) found that the support worker was an employee. The case illustrates how the notion of employee in Norwegian law adapts to new ways of organising work and may be of interest in other jurisdictions.

When a package travel contract is not realized, the organizer assumes the obligation to inform the consumer, to provide a refund and to provide alternative services. All these measures form part of the core of the EU’s legislative acquis and are mainly governed by Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours. The Directive employs a fragmented approach and is currently under review. This area also remains outside the new comprehensive approach introduced by the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council of 8 October 2008 on consumer rights, and it would appear that this harmonization ‘deficit’ will be covered by means of ‘vertical action’. The aims of this paper are to contrast the existing regulations in this field with the general rules of consumer contract law, to identify the inconsistencies involved and to present some proposals regarding performance rules.