The duty of care is an obligation for companies to prevent social, environmental and governance risks related to their activities. A very recent law published on 28th March 2017 has reinforced such duty of care.
The duty of care concerns French companies employing, at the end of 2 consecutive fiscal years, at least 5,000 employees
Dual employment is a sensitive subject in French employment law as it enables employees to raise claims against a different employer from that with which the employment contract was signed.
The matrix-type organisation of groups of companies, which has become the rule, can have adverse consequences if employees have the feeling that they are employed
Much attention was focused recently on President Obama’s decision, in the final days of his presidency, on commuting the sentence of Chelsea Manning, who provided certain classified information to WikiLeaks. In France, new legislation has recently been passed and implemented harmonizing the protection of whistleblowing employees (https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do;jsessionid=4BBFD240827AF0FD9A6340FF254E6F1B.tpdila21v_3?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000033558528&categorieLien=id).
Who is concerned?
Under the new
The Ontario Court of Appeal recently considered the common law principles of reasonable notice and the duty to mitigate in the context of fixed-term employment contracts in Howard v Benson Group Inc. Howard, the plaintiff, was employed at an automotive service centre pursuant to a five-year fixed term contract. He was terminated without cause
You may be familiar with the Aesop fable in which a monkey convinces a naïve cat to burn his paw in order to pull chestnuts from a hot fire for their mutual satisfaction but then eats all the chestnuts himself. This “cat’s paw” doctrine, as it has been coined in employment litigation, has been applied
The employment contract of a “Montreal Impact Academy’s U14” team coach was recently terminated as he made racist comments on his private Facebook page following the defeat of France against Portugal in the Euro 2016 final. In a news release, the Montreal Impact shortly dissociated itself from these comments, considering that they were totally unacceptable
The issue of the liability the employers can face as a result of the acts and/or omissions of their employees is a recurring aspect of employee management in France.
There are no specific employment rules per se governing the extent to which the employers can be held vicariously liable for the acts of their employees.
This post was also contributed by Ebru Tirel, Trainee, Norton Rose Fulbright LLP (Munich).
Imagine a forklift truck driver damaging the car of a customer of the employer, resulting in a loss of EUR 200,000. Who will be liable for the damage?
Generally speaking, of course, the employee is directly liable for the damage caused
Two recent decisions of the UK Supreme Court have considered the doctrine of vicarious liability and effectively extended it to a wider range of circumstances.
In the UK an employer can be held liable for the tortious acts committed by an employee in the course of their employment. Courts will consider whether there is a
Since Bhasin v Hrynew, 2014 SCC 71, courts have been applying the “organizing principle” of good faith in all contractual relationships thereby delinating its scope in different cirucmstances. One recent decision applying this principle addressess the circumstances where an employer excercises a discretionary contractual right to effectively deny an employee his compensation under a