Zoekresultaat: 568 artikelen

x
Artikel

Dismissal protection in Denmark

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Ontslagrecht, Aflevering 4 2021
Trefwoorden protection against dismissal, flexicurity, industrial relations, social security, dynamic and adjustable labour market
Auteurs mr. dr. Natalie Munkholm
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The article gives an overview of the protection against dismissal according to Danish statutory acts and collective agreements.


mr. dr. Natalie Munkholm
Natalie Munkholm is werkzaam als associate professor Labour Law aan de Aarhus Universiteit, Denemarken.

    By a majority of 4-3, the Supreme Court of Ireland has held that the Workplace Relations Commission’s power to adjudicate disputes between employers and employees was not unconstitutional. However, the majority of the Supreme Court did find that certain aspects of the Commission’s procedures were unconstitutional, namely the blanket ban on public hearings and the lack of capacity for taking evidence on oath. The Workplace Relations Act 2015 and the Workplace Relations Commission procedures have consequently been amended to address these issues. This case report is a follow-up on EELC 2020/34.


Laura Ryan
Laura Ryan is an Associate at Mason Hayes & Curran.
Pending Cases

Case C-380/21, Social Insurance

Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) – v – Ryanair DAC, reference lodged by the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) on 18 January 2021

Tijdschrift European Employment Law Cases, Aflevering 3 2021
Trefwoorden Social Insurance
Pending Cases

Case C-427/21, Temporary Agency Work

LD – v – ALB FILS KLINIKEN GmbH, reference lodged by the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) on 14 July 2021

Tijdschrift European Employment Law Cases, Aflevering 3 2021
Trefwoorden Temporary Agency Work
Rulings

ECJ 15 July 2021, joined cases C-152/50 and C-218/20 (SC Gruber Logistics), Applicable Law

DG, EH – v – SC Gruber Logistics SRL (C-152/20) and Sindicatul Lucrătorilor din Transporturi, DT – v – SC Samidani Trans SRL (C-218/20), Romanian cases

Tijdschrift European Employment Law Cases, Aflevering 3 2021
Trefwoorden Applicable Law
Samenvatting

    If parties choose the applicable law pursuant to Article 8(1) of the Rome I Regulation, the objectively applicable law (ex Article 8(2-4) does not apply with the exception of ‘provisions that cannot be derogated from by agreement’. Moreover, the choice for the applicable law must be free, but is considered to be made freely even if the employee merely accepts a clause drafted by the employer.

    The wording of a global exclusion clause in an employment contract also covered claims asserted on the grounds of intentional damage. However, such a clause was invalid in the case at hand because it resulted in a shortening of the statutory limitation periods. Both parties to the employment contract could not therefore refer to such a contractual exclusion clause. The consequence was that the statutory limitation periods applied. The employer can also invoke the invalidity of the exclusion clause, even if it drafted the clause itself. The judgment may also have important consequences for collective agreements.


Jana Voigt
Jana Voigt is senior associate at Luther Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft in Düsseldorf, Germany.

Pia Schweers
Pia Schweers is associate at Luther Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft in Essen, Germany.
Case Reports

2021/32 Grand Chamber confirms no double punishment for illegal employment (SK)

Tijdschrift European Employment Law Cases, Aflevering 3 2021
Trefwoorden Other Fundamental Rights
Auteurs Dušan Nitschneider en Danica Valentová
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The Grand Chamber of the Slovakian Supreme Court has unanimously decided that employers cannot be penalised by two different agencies for one violation of employment law rules and that the ne bis in idem principle also applies to two administrative breaches of the law.


Dušan Nitschneider
Dušan Nitschneider is a partner at Nitschneider & Partners.

Danica Valentová
Danica Valentová is a senior associate at Nitschneider & Partners.

    The Bulgarian Supreme Administrative Court has held that not only employees working under an employment relationship but also state officials enjoy special protection against termination.


Kalina Tchakarova
Kalina Tchakarova is a partner at Djingov, Gouginski, Kyutchukov and Velichkov.

    Ryanair and Crewlink have finally been found in violation of Belgian mandatory provisions following the ruling of the ECJ in cases C-168/16 and C-169/16 (Nogueira and Others) and ordered to pay certain amounts to the employees involved by virtue of Belgian mandatory provisions. Yet, this trade union victory has a bitter taste for those employees, who were refused their main claim, i.e. to be paid normal remuneration for on-call time at the airport.


Gautier Busschaert
Gautier Busschaert is an Attorney at Van Olmen & Wynant.

    The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled that ‘gender critical’ beliefs are protected philosophical beliefs for equality law purposes, while confirming that a belief in ‘gender identity’ is also a protected characteristic. This means that it is unlawful to discriminate against someone because they do or do not hold either of those beliefs.


Bethan Carney
Bethan Carney is a Managing Practice Development Lawyer, Lewis Silkin LLP.
Pending Cases

Case C-301/21, Discrimination General, Age Discrimination

Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia and Others – v – YF and Others, reference lodged by the Curtea de Apel Oradea (Romania) on 11 May 2021

Tijdschrift European Employment Law Cases, Aflevering 3 2021
Trefwoorden Discrimination General, Age Discrimination

    In its decision rendered on 29 September 2020, the Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof, ‘OGH’) ruled that periods of prior professional services completed with employers in the EU or the EEA other than the current employer must be taken into account for salary classifications to guarantee the freedom of movement of workers under Article 45 TFEU.


Stefan Zischka
Stefan Zischka is Partner at Jank Weiler Operenyi Attorneys at Law / Deloitte Legal Austria.

Christina Feistritzer
Christina Feistritzer is Associate at Jank Weiler Operenyi Attorneys at Law / Deloitte Legal Austria.

    The Craiova Court of Appeal has ruled that a trade union that organized an illegal strike was civilly liable for the entire prejudice caused to the employer due to the interruption of its business activity. The compensation will be calculated based on the damage incurred by the employer, regardless of whether the strike took place for only two hours, as in the case at hand, if the activity of the unit was disrupted for a longer period of time due to such strike action.


Andreea Suciu
Andreea Suciu is Managing Partner of Suciu | The Employment Law Firm.

Andreea Oprea
Andreea Oprea is an Associate at Suciu | The Employment Law Firm.

    The UK’s Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that retail staff of the supermarket chain Asda can compare themselves under UK law to higher-paid distribution depot staff for the purposes of an equal pay claim. In a separate case against Tesco, the ECJ subsequently confirmed that the company’s shop workers can rely directly on EU law to compare themselves to distribution centre workers for the purposes of such a claim.


Carolyn Soakell
Carolyn Soakell is a partner at Lewis Silkin LLP.

    In a decision of 16 June 2021 (6 AZR 390/20 (A)), the German Federal Labour Court (Bundesarbeitsgericht, ‘BAG’) referred a question to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling that has been a controversial issue in Germany for some time. The question is whether the possibility of a permanent supply of temporary workers, which is referred to as ‘personnel supply’ (Personalgestellung) in the context of the collective agreement for the public sector, and the exemption from the scope of the German Temporary Employment Act (Arbeitnehmerüberlassungsgesetz, ‘AÜG’) pursuant to Section 1(3) No. 2b AÜG, which allows this provision in the collective agreement, violates the provisions of Directive 2008/104/EC on temporary agency work (the ‘Temporary Agency Work Directive’). Depending on the outcome of the ECJ’s decision, this could have a significant impact on staff leasing often practised in companies operating in the public sector.


Othmar K Traber
Othmar K. Traber is an attorney-at-law and a partner at Ahlers & Vogel Rechtsanwälte PartG mbB.
Article

Access_open Big Data Ethics: A Life Cycle Perspective

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 1 2021
Trefwoorden big data, big data analysis, data life cycle, ethics, AI
Auteurs Simon Vydra, Andrei Poama, Sarah Giest e.a.
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The adoption of big data analysis in the legal domain is a recent but growing trend that highlights ethical concerns not just with big data analysis, as such, but also with its deployment in the legal domain. This article systematically analyses five big data use cases from the legal domain utilising a pluralistic and pragmatic mode of ethical reasoning. In each case we analyse what happens with data from its creation to its eventual archival or deletion, for which we utilise the concept of ‘data life cycle’. Despite the exploratory nature of this article and some limitations of our approach, the systematic summary we deliver depicts the five cases in detail, reinforces the idea that ethically significant issues exist across the entire big data life cycle, and facilitates understanding of how various ethical considerations interact with one another throughout the big data life cycle. Furthermore, owing to its pragmatic and pluralist nature, the approach is potentially useful for practitioners aiming to interrogate big data use cases.


Simon Vydra
Simon Vydra is a Researcher at the Institute for Public Administration, Leiden University, the Netherlands.

Andrei Poama
Andrei Poama is Assistant Professor at the Institute for Public Administration, Leiden University, the Netherlands.

Sarah Giest
Sarah Giest is Assistant Professor at the Institute for Public Administration, Leiden University, the Netherlands.

Alex Ingrams
Alex Ingrams is Assistant Professor at the Institute for Public Administration, Leiden University, the Netherlands.

Bram Klievink
Bram Klievink is Professor of Digitization and Public Policy at the Institute for Public Administration, Leiden University, the Netherlands.
Artikel

Constructief omgaan met conflicten en ­geschillen

Inleiding in probleemoplossend onderhandelen en bemiddelen

Tijdschrift Nederlands-Vlaams tijdschrift voor mediation en conflictmanagement, Aflevering 2 2021
Auteurs Alain-Laurent Verbeke en Geert Vervaeke
Auteursinformatie

Alain-Laurent Verbeke
Prof. Dr. Alain-Laurent Verbeke (1964) is gewoon hoogleraar aan de KU Leuven. Hij doceert er sinds 1991 onder meer onderhandelen en bemiddelen, nationaal en internationaal familiaal vermogensrecht, bijzondere overeenkomsten, zowel in de bachelor en master rechten als in de master notariaat. Aan de rechtsfaculteit is hij directeur van het Rector Roger Dillemans Instituut Familiaal Vermogensrecht, codirecteur van het Leuvens Centrum Notariaat en van het Instituut Contractenrecht. Aan de faculteit psychologie is hij covoorzitter van het Leuven Center for Collaborative Management (LCM). Hij is mede-oprichter (in 2001), lesgever en lid van de stuurgroep van het postgraduaat bemiddeling van de KU Leuven. Ook is hij (co)promotor van talrijke doctoraten, in de rechten en in de psychologie. Hij is advocaat aan de balies van Brussel en West-Vlaanderen, partner Greenille Private Client Team @ Deloitte Legal. Hij is sinds 2007 Visiting Professor of Law aan Harvard Law School, waar hij negotiation doceert. Sinds 2008 is hij ook Professor of Law & Negotiation aan UCP Lisbon Global School of Law en sinds 1999 deeltijds gewoon hoogleraar privaatrecht en rechtsvergelijking aan Tilburg University. Hij ontving de Francqui Leerstoel (VUB, 2010-2011), de KBC Chair in Family Wealth (Antwerp Management School, 2014-2015) en de Van Oosterwyck Leerstoel notarieel recht (VUB, 2003). In Harvard is hij verbonden aan het Program on Negotiation (PON). Zie www.law.kuleuven.be/fvr/nl/pdf/cvALV.

Geert Vervaeke
Prof. Dr. Geert Vervaeke (1960) is Decaan van de Faculteit Rechtsgeleerdheid van Tilburg University. Hij is tevens deeltijds Gewoon Hoogleraar aan de Faculteit der Rechtsgeleerdheid van de KU Leuven in de criminologische en rechtspsychologie. Momenteel is hij voorzitter van de European Association on Psychology and Law (https://eapl.eu). Tevens is hij voorzitter van de stuurgroep van het postgraduaat bemiddeling aan de KU Leuven. Hij is gewezen Voorzitter van de Belgische Hoge Raad voor de Justitie (2004-2012: www.hrj.be/nl). Hij was tussen 2004 en 2012 tevens lid van het bestuur van het Europees Netwerk van Hoge Raden (www.encj.eu) en curator van het wetenschappelijk luik van het Stadsfestival Op.Recht.Mechelen (2015-2017: www.oprechtmechelen.be).

Annie de Roo
Dr. Annie de Roo is als universitair hoofddocent verbonden aan Erasmus University Law School Rotterdam. Zij is hoofdredacteur van TMD en vicevoorzitter van SKM Examencommissie Mediatorsfederatie Nederland. Haar aandachtsgebied in onderwijs en onderzoek is rechtsvergelijking, met accent op geschiloplossing in vergelijkend perspectief.

    In its decision rendered on 28 February 2019, the Luxembourg Court of Appeal (Cour d’appel de Luxembourg) examined under which circumstances on-call duty performed at the workplace qualifies as actual working time.
    The issue raised was whether the time spent at night by an employee (i.e. the presence of an employee at the workplace) performing the work of a live-in carer was to be considered as ‘actual working time’.
    The Court expressly referred to EU case law and decided that the concept of actual working time is defined by two criteria, namely (i) whether the employee during such a period must be at the employer’s disposal, and (ii) the interference with the employee’s freedom to choose their activities.
    In view of the working hours provided for in the employment contract and in the absence of evidence proving that the employee would not have been at the employer’s home during her working hours, the Court found that the employee stayed at the employer’s home at night and at the employer’s request. It was irrelevant in this respect whether it was for convenience or not. It was further established that the employee could not leave during the night and return to her home and go about her personal business, so that the hours she worked at night were to be considered as actual working time.
    Given that the employee’s objections regarding her salary were justified (as the conditions of her remuneration violated statutory provisions), the Court decided that the dismissal was unfair.


Michel Molitor
Michel Molitor is the managing partner of MOLITOR Avocats à la Cour SARL in Luxembourg, www.molitorlegal.lu.

    The Supreme Court (SC) has unanimously decided that drivers engaged by Uber are workers rather than independent contractors. It also decided that drivers are working when they are signed in to the Uber app and ready to work.


Colin Leckey
Colin Leckey is a partner at Lewis Silkin LLP.
Toont 1 - 20 van 568 gevonden teksten
« 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 28 29
U kunt door de volledige tekst zoeken naar alle artikelen door uw zoekterm in het zoekveld in te vullen. Als u op de knop 'Zoek' heeft geklikt komt u op de zoekresultatenpagina met filters, die u helpen om snel bij het door u gezochte artikel te komen. Er zijn op dit moment twee filters: rubriek en jaar.