The Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) has ruled that the method of enforcement of the right to paid holiday in the UK Working Time Regulations (WTR) is incompatible with the EU Working Time Directive. This is because, if an employer refuses to pay a worker for a period of holiday, under the
On the Job + On the Grid: Monitoring Employees
There are many varied and valid reasons as to why employers incorporate monitoring in the workplace. Whether it is the more widespread video surveillance cameras installed in many convenience stores or the seemingly nefarious GPS tracking in employees’ phones, employers can effectively monitor their workplaces without running afoul of their privacy obligations.
With the widespread
A Framework for Modern Employment – House of commons report.
The Work and Pensions and Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committees have published a joint report on “A framework for modern employment” (the Report) which considers how the employment framework should be amended to reflect the modern workplace.
The Report acknowledges that “the expansion of self-employment and business models built around flexible work on digital
When emotions run a-Mok: Trial judge’s decision upheld in Sweeting v Mok, 2017 ONCA 203
As an employer, you need to be careful what you say in the heat of the moment. That is the takeaway from the Ontario Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Sweeting v. Mok, 2017 ONCA 203.
In this case, there was a dispute between Ms. Sweeting and her employer, Dr. Lawrence Man-Suen Mok.
Working as a freelancer and as an employee for the same company
In Germany, the distinction between employees and independent contractors (also referred to as freelancers) is particularly important. For example, the question of whether a person is an employee or an independent contractor determines whether they are protected against unfair dismissal and also affects how they are treated for statutory social security and income tax purposes.
Fair Work Commission considers award provision allowing employers to deduct pay where an employee fails to give sufficient notice
As part of its four yearly review of modern awards, the Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission (FWC) has recently considered whether a clause found in many modern awards allowing employers to make deductions from an employee’s termination pay (where the employee fails to give sufficient notice of resignation) should be removed, changed or included in all modern awards.
23 redundancies with no consultation? Federal Court says ‘that’s OK’
An employer decides to abolish 23 full-time positions due to a lack of funding. Surely this is a major change likely to have a significant effect on employees which obliges the employer to consult with those employees as per the consultation term in their enterprise agreement?
While many would say ‘yes, of course’, the Federal Court in Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation v Bupa Aged Care Australia Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 1246 recently found the answer to be a clear ‘no’ and, accordingly, there was no requirement for the employer to consult.
What rights does an employer have to suspend an employee?
In Hong Kong, employers have a right to suspend employees from employment.
Under section 11 of the Employment Ordinance, an employer may without notice or payment in lieu suspend any employee from employment for up to 14 days: (a) as a disciplinary measure for any reason for which the employer could have summarily dismissed the
Uber appeal – Drivers have worker status
The EAT has dismissed Uber’s appeal against the employment tribunal’s decision that its drivers are ‘workers’ within the meaning of S.230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996) and the equivalent definitions in the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 (NMWA 1998) and the Working Time Regulations 1998 (WTR 1998). The EAT held that the
Drug and alcohol testing: have you got your employee’s consent?
The idiom “I’m chained to my desk” is one familiar to many, but for the Queensland District Court the relationship between the workplace and incarceration may not always stop there.
In Pere v Central Queensland Hospital and Health Service[1], a hospital fire safety and security officer brought an action against his former employer, Queensland Hospital and Health Service (QHHS) for battery (although it was misconstrued as assault) and negligence after hospital staff required him to take a blood and urine test on suspicion of him being intoxicated at work.