The Italian Constitutional Court (the “Court”) has partially repealed the “Jobs Act” reform of 2015 that introduced, among other things, a predictable calculation criteria for the monetary compensation to be paid in case of unlawful dismissal (2 months’ salary for each year of service, with a minimum threshold and a maximum cap).
The full decision
Anonymous reports have been mistrusted for a number of years in France, for historical reasons. While anonymity enables individuals to raise their voice more openly, without being the targets of retaliation measures, it can also drift into slander.
This explains a specificity of French law under which whistleblowers using ethicals lines are strongly encouraged to
Dismissal procedures are highly regulated in France including with respect to the identity of the individual who is entitled to conduct the procedure and sign the dismissal letter; such person must -by definition- be the “employer” . However, some flexibility has been introduced over the years by French case law, and a recent decision of
It is a fact of life in French employer-employee relations that employees have no hesitation in bringing actions against their employer, in particular following termination of an employment, and that litigation is therefore not just a virtual weapon. Not only do employees sue their employer but, where the employer is a part of a group
Books, hotels, restaurants, products: you can find reviews and rating websites for just about everything on the internet – even employers. However, employees posting internet reviews of their employer should be careful and measured in what they say, or risk being subjected to disciplinary measures – or even dismissal – if they abuse their freedom
French employment courts generally subject alleged reasons for employee dismissal to close scrutiny, particularly where dismissals are based on a breach of the duty of loyalty or of probity. Such breaches only constitute valid grounds for dismissal if they are genuine and rely on objective facts and behaviour which are attributable to the employee concerned.
Changes to taxation of termination payments came into force in the United Kingdom on 6 April 2018. The new rules will mean that income tax and national insurance contributions (NICs) will be payable on all payments which relate to an employee’s notice period.
The position prior to 6 April was that a “termination payment” (being any payment that is not already chargeable to income tax) could be paid tax free up to £30,000. However, any payments made pursuant to the contract of employment including a contractual payment in lieu of notice (PILON) would be subject to tax in the usual way. One particular area of issue was the taxation of discretionary PILONs. Whilst a discretionary PILON may be outside the contract and therefore could arguably fall within a true termination payment, where such a payment has become “customary” then the UK tax authority (HMRC) has sought to tax that non-contractual PILON.
A recent case has considered whether a school was entitled to summarily dismiss a head teacher for her failure to disclose a personal relationship with a convicted sex offender.
In the case of Reilly v Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council Mrs Reilly was dismissed after she failed to disclose her friendship with a convicted sex offender, to the governing body of the school at which she was headmistress (the School). Mrs Reilly brought a claim for unfair dismissal to the Employment Tribunal which she lost, and her subsequent appeals at the Employment Appeals Tribunal, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court were all dismissed.
Technology is ever-changing, and while in the past evidence of an employee’s misconduct was based mainly on “physical” witnesses and observations, employers might now be tempted to use data obtained through social media as evidence against their employees.
At the present time the French Supreme Court has not had many occasions to clarify the manner in which evidence obtained by French employers through the Facebook website (and more particularly on the “wall” of an individual) should be treated by the courts.
Over the course of this past year there have been several important decisions dealing with the enforceability of termination clauses in employment agreements, and how a court is to interpret a clause to determine the employer’s obligations to a departing employee. The importance of these decisions can be seen by contrasting the financial consequences that