This case confirms that if both the transferor and transferee are affiliated to the same mandatory industry-level pension scheme, following the transfer, the transferee is liable for due but unpaid pension contributions dating from before the date of the transfer.

A staffing agency rejected an application for an advertised job because the applicant refused to remove her hijab. The court of first instance saw no discrimination, the Court of Appeal did. The plaintiff was awarded €500 but had to bear her own legal expenses.

The Supreme Court of Lithuania recently affirmed that the courts have no competence to assess the merits of an employer’s decision to restructure and make staff redundant, as the decision was at the employer’s discretion to make.

Article 60(1)(g) of the Romanian Labour Code does not allow an employer to dismiss trade union leaders for reasons other than disciplinary misconduct or judicial reorganisation, dissolution or bankruptcy of the employer. The Constitutional Court has recently ruled that Article 60(1)(g) is unconstitutional.

An employee challenged whether her employer’s refusal to provide childcare vouchers during maternity leave was discriminatory. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) determined, somewhat tentatively, that where childcare vouchers are provided through a salary sacrifice scheme, it is not discriminatory for employers to cease to provide childcare vouchers during maternity leave.

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.

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.

The employee, a public servant, criticised her employer’s director in an email that she sent all of her co-workers. The email made its way into a newspaper. She was dismissed. She challenged her dismissal successfully: the Supreme Court, weighing the employee’s right to freedom of speech against the employer’s right to protect its reputation and business interests, held the dismissal to be unfounded.

The basic rule in Norwegian law is that an employer planning to reduce headcount must apply the rules for selecting those to be dismissed (based on seniority, qualifications, personal circumstances, etc.) to the entire workforce within the relevant legal entity. However, there are circumstances under which the employer may limit the pool of employees within which to apply those rules. In this case, the employer was justified in limiting that pool to one employee, thereby avoiding the need to make a selection.

An ‘independent contractor’ working for a company in a subordinate relationship should be considered as a de facto employee. In such a situation, the company and its legal representatives can be held liable for ‘concealed work’ and be subject to criminal penalties.

The Danish Supreme Court recently affirmed that the transfer of a canteen contract to another operator following a tender process did not fall within the scope of the Danish Transfer of Undertakings Act.
The Danish Transfer of Undertakings Act applies to the transfer of an undertaking or part of an undertaking, meaning an economic entity which retains its identity. In the test of whether a transfer is a transfer within the meaning of the Act, an overall assessment of all facts surrounding the transfer must be made. This was the issue in this case before the Supreme Court.

Under Irish law, an employee claiming compensation for constructive dismissal bears a high burden of proof. Failure to exhaust the employer’s grievance procedure before bringing such a claim to court is generally a recipe for failure. However, a CEO who brought such a claim without first going through the grievance procedure was recently awarded record compensation of € 1.25 million.

If both the transferor and transferee are affiliated to one and the same mandatory industry-level pension fund, the transferee is liable vis-à-vis that pension fund for pension contributions (premiums) due but not paid to that fund prior to the date of transfer. A judgment to this effect, which was reported in EELC in 2013/35, was recently confirmed on appeal.

Austrian law permits the dismissal of an employee during parental leave only in cases where the employer cannot reasonably be expected to continue the contractual relationship. The colour of a hair ribbon does not justify the termination of a young father’s employment as a bus driver.

A day care provider, Estro Groep B.V., (‘Estro’) went into pre-arranged (‘pre-pack’) receivership. Immediately afterwards, a large part of its business was taken over by another day care provider, Smallsteps B.V. (‘Smallsteps’). The latter did not offer employment to all of Estro’s employees, taking the position that the takeover did not constitute the transfer of an undertaking. This position was based on the fact that Estro was in receivership at the time of the takeover. According to the Dutch law transposing the Acquired Rights Directive, such takeovers are exempted from the rules on transfers of undertakings. A union and five of the employees whom Smallsteps had not offered jobs, relying on the wording of Article 5(1) of the Directive (“insolvency proceedings which have been instituted with a view to the liquidation of the assets”), claimed that they had become Smallsteps employees. The court referred questions to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling.