Abscondment dismissal requires proof of no intention to return to work

During the height of the 2020 Covid-19 pandemic, the employer, Concrete Lining Products, decided to close down operations from 25 March to 16 April 2020 whilst continuing to pay its employees in full for that period, with the amount paid to be offset against the employees’ annual leave for days not worked.   The applicant, … Continue reading

Demise of non-competes? Key takeaways from recent Singapore judgments striking down non-compete and other restrictive covenants

The starting point under Singapore law is that any contractual term restricting a former employee’s business activities after termination of employment (known as a restraint of trade clause or a restrictive covenant) is – on its face – void and unenforceable for being a restraint on the freedom of trade and contrary to public policy. … Continue reading

First Victorian industrial manslaughter decision

By: Nicki Milionis and Michael McCrae with thanks to Yasmine Sahihi and Amy Moore for their contributions Victoria’s first industrial manslaughter decision pursuant to section 39G of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (Vic) (OHS Act) was handed down in the Supreme Court recently in R v LH Holding Management Pty Ltd & Hanna … Continue reading

EU confirms agreement on rules to improve working conditions of platform workers

On 11 March the Council of the EU confirmed the provisional agreement reached on the Platform Workers Directive (the Directive).  The Directive aims to improve the working conditions of those who work on platforms in the gig economy and will also regulate the use of algorithms by digital labour platforms.  Employment protection The EU suggests … Continue reading

Unpacking the urgency element in restraint of trade applications

In modern employment contracts, restraint of trade clauses are commonly inserted to protect the employer’s proprietary interests. The purpose thereof is to prohibit an employee for a specified period and prescribed geographical area from taking up employment with a direct competitor. Employers need to be wary of employees who breach restraint of trade clauses and … Continue reading

Employment: What is coming into force in April 2024?

As we highlighted in our previous post (What to expect in employment law in 2024), 2023 saw the introduction of several significant employment legislative changes. Just to remind you of the changes due to come into effect in April. Holiday Leave and Pay: Provisions for irregular hours and part-year workers apply to leave years starting … Continue reading

Territorial Jurisdiction – where is the employee’s base?

  In Yacht Management Company Ltd v Gordon the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has upheld a decision of the Employment Tribunal, that there were numerous factors to support the Tribunal’s conclusion that it had jurisdiction to hear a claim of unfair dismissal brought by the employee because the seafarer’s “base” was her home in Aberdeen, … Continue reading

Germany: Collective redundancy notifications

German Federal Labour Court: The planned change of direction of the Sixth Senate In its decision of December 14, 2023 in case 6 AZR 157/22 (B), the Sixth Senate of the German Federal Labour Court, which is responsible for insolvency matters, announced that it would depart from existing case law pursuant to which a dismissal … Continue reading

Aktuelles zur Massenentlassungsanzeige

BAG: Der geplante Kurswechsel des Sechstens Senats Der für Insolvenzsachen zuständige Sechste Senat des Bundesarbeitsgerichts hat mit Beschluss vom 14. Dezember 2023 in dem Verfahren 6 AZR 157/22 (B) angekündigt, seine Rechtsprechung aufzugeben, wonach eine im Rahmen einer Massenentlassung nach § 17 Abs. 1 KSchG ausgesprochene Kündigung unwirksam ist, wenn im Zeitpunkt ihrer Erklärung eine … Continue reading

Agences de placement: Congédiement illégal d’un employé ayant contesté une clause de non-embauche d’une durée de plus de six mois  

Introduction Le Tribunal administratif du travail (TAT) a été appelé à rendre une décision[1] qui, pour la première fois, met en cause l’article 23(2) du Règlement sur les agences de placement de personnel et les agences de recrutement de travailleurs étrangers temporaires (Règlement sur les agences de placement)[2], lequel interdit de restreindre l’embauche d’un employé … Continue reading
LexBlog