Search result: 13 articles

x
The search results will be filtered on:
Journal European Employment Law Cases x
Case Law

2020/1 EELC’s review of the year 2019

Journal European Employment Law Cases, Issue 1 2020
Authors Ruben Houweling, Daiva Petrylaitė, Peter Schöffmann e.a.
Abstract

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


Ruben Houweling

Daiva Petrylaitė

Peter Schöffmann

Attila Kun

Francesca Maffei

Jean-Philippe Lhernould

Niklas Bruun

Jan-Pieter Vos

Luca Ratti

Anthony Kerr

Petr Hůrka

Michal Vrajík
Pending Cases

Case C-394/19, Free movement

PN, QO, RP, SQ, TR – v – Centre public d’action sociale d’Anderlecht (CPAS), reference lodged by the Tribunal du travail francophone de Bruxelles (Belgium) on 21 May 2019

Journal European Employment Law Cases, Issue 3 2019
Keywords Free movement
Abstract

    The Polish national social insurance authority has no power to police ‘social dumping’. Neither is there any legal basis or justification for excluding workers performing work in other EU Member States from the national social insurance system based on an unverifiable assumption that social dumping is taking place.


Marcin Wujczyk PhD.
Marcin Wujczyk, PhD., is a partner with Baran Ksiazek Bigaj Wujczyk in Krakow, www.ksiazeklegal.pl.
Law Review

Access_open 2018/1 EELC’s review of the year 2017

Journal European Employment Law Cases, Issue 1 2018
Authors Ruben Houweling, Catherine Barnard, Zef Even e.a.
Abstract

    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.


Ruben Houweling

Catherine Barnard

Zef Even

Amber Zwanenburg

Daiva Petrylaitė

Petr Hůrka

Jean-Philippe Lhernould

Erika Kovács

Jan-Pieter Vos

Andrej Poruban

Luca Ratti

Niklas Bruun

Francesca Maffei

    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 highest administrative court in the Netherlands has delivered a razor-sharp ruling on the intra-community service provision set out in Articles 56 and 57 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union). This concerns ‘new’ EU-nationals who are still under transitional measures with regard to access to the labour markets of ‘old’ EU Member States. The judgment was preceded by a request from the Chairman to a State Councillor Advocate General to deliver his opinion on various aspects of punitive administrative law practice in the Netherlands. Both the opinion and the judgment are a welcome clarification and addition (or even correction) on the practice.


Bart J. Maes
Bart J. Maes is a partner at Maes Staudt Advocaten N.V. in Eindhoven, the Netherlands (www.maes-staudt.nl).

    Under the Latvian Labour Law an employee has the right to terminate an employment contract with immediate effect, i.e. without complying with the statutory notice period of one month, if the employee has ‘good cause’. Under the Labour Law, ‘good cause’ is any situation, which, based on considerations of morality and fairness, would not allow for the employment to continue. If an employee terminates their employment contract for good cause the employer must pay severance to the employee based on the employee’s years of service with the employer and amounting to between one and four months’ average earnings. If the employee gives notice for good cause, this terminates the employment contract with immediate effect.
    Even if the employer disagrees with the reasons given in the termination notice, the employer cannot terminate the employment contract on any other ground and does not have the right to challenge the validity of the notice in court. However, if the employer suffers loss as a result of the immediate termination; its reputation is damaged based on the reasons given in the notice; or it has faced some other adverse consequence; the employer can bring a claim arguing that what is stated in the notice is untrue.


Andis Burkevics
Andis Burkevics is a senior associate with the Latvian office of law firm SORAINEN (www.sorainen.com).
Case Reports

2017/12 Court of Appeal rejects argument that Christmas strikes are unlawful under EU law (UK)

Journal European Employment Law Cases, Issue 2 2017
Keywords Collective labour law, industrial actions, unions
Authors Vince Toman and David Hopper
AbstractAuthor's information

    The Court of Appeal has confirmed that industrial action called with the object or purpose of infringing the cross-border freedom to establish and receive services would be unlawful. It rejected the argument that industrial action would be unlawful if it made it unattractive for foreign companies to operate in the UK or if cross-border services might potentially be disrupted. These wider tests would be inconsistent with European case law on the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) and would be incompatible with proper protection of the right to strike.


Vince Toman

David Hopper
Vince Toman and David Hopper are respectively Head of the Trade Union and Collective Employment Law Group and Senior Associate at Lewis Silkin LLP.

    In a much publicised case, Uber drivers have won a first instance employment tribunal finding that they are ‘workers’ and not self-employed contractors. This decision means that they are entitled to basic protections, such as the national minimum wage, paid holiday (under the Working Time Directive) and protection against detriment for ‘blowing the whistle’ on wrong doing. The decision could have substantial financial consequences for Uber, which has around 40,000 drivers in the UK but Uber has already confirmed that it will appeal the decision, so we are unlikely to have a final determination on this question for some time.


Bethan Carney
Bethan Carney is a lawyer at Lewis Silkin LLP: www.lewissilkin.com.
Showing all 13 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.