This post was also contributed by Tony Rau, Trainee, Norton Rose Fulbright LLP (Munich).
German law provides for extensive protection of pregnant employees and employees on leave in connection with pregnancy. Regarding the latter, German law distinguishes between maternity leave (i.e. 6 weeks before until 8 weeks after childbirth – or 6 weeks before until
The BC Labour Relations Board recently upheld the reinstatement of a nurse who, on multiple occasions over an extended period, accessed private health authority records for personal reasons and without authority. The Board upheld the arbitration award that ordered her reinstatement based in part on the nurse’s 11th hour apology. The decision illustrates the
Just for once, we will talk about French lawyers. We say “for once”, because only a minority of lawyers in France are employees (a very large majority of us are self-employed).
From a French employment law point of view, although the employee in the particular case we will discuss here was a lawyer, that is
This post was contributed by Jahan Meeran, Trainee Solicitor, Norton Rose Fulbright LLP, London
A recent decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) illustrates the pitfalls of not adopting a sensitive consultation process in the event of redundancy..
In the case, the claimant had been employed by the property management division of his employer for
In the recent case of Skinner et al v Asciano Services Pty Ltd T/A Pacific National Bulk [2017] FWCFB 574 the Full Bench found that an employer breached its obligation to explore redeployment options under s.389(2) of the Fair Work Act 2009 after making 7 of its employees redundant without properly considering job swaps and voluntary redundancies with other employees. These 7 employees who had previously had their unfair dismissal applications dismissed, consequently had their applications remitted for re-hearing.
Aylsworth v Law Office of Harvey Storm, 2016 ONSC 3938 is an interesting case that further defines the boundaries of what type of job employees can reasonably reject without failing in their duty to mitigate their wrongful dismissal damages.
Lynne Aylsworth had worked at the Law Office of Harvey Storm for 15 years as a
Last month, the Fair Work Commission upheld a decision to dismiss an employee for breaching its zero tolerance policy on illicit drugs, confirming the importance of having a clear drug and alcohol policy that is effectively communicated and consistently applied.
The employer, Coles Group Supply Chain Pty Ltd (Coles), summarily dismissed Shane Clayton who tested positive to cannabis, in breach of Coles’ drug and alcohol policy, which clearly stipulated cut-off levels of alcohol intake and a zero tolerance to illicit drugs for any person employed “at any Coles Distribution Centre in any position.”[1]
Whilst the fairness of a dismissal for breaching a zero tolerance policy is ultimately for the Commission to determine, taking into account the nature of the workplace, the risks associated with employees working under the influence of alcohol or illicit drugs and the absence of an appropriate objective test for impairment, the case confirms that an important consideration is the language of the policy.[2] In this case, Coles’ policy stated that it was directed to providing “a conclusive (positive/negative) result and not to establish[ing] the extent to which a person may be impaired from performing work tasks.”[3] It also clearly stated that a positive test for illicit drugs could result in dismissal.
In the UK, a zero hours worker is a casual worker engaged on a zero hours contract. A zero hours contract is defined in UK legislation as a contract of employment or other worker’s contract under which a worker undertakes to perform work conditionally on the employer making such work available, but there is no
Unlike in the U.K. and other EU member states, zero hours contracts are not (yet) common practice in Germany. To date, other arrangements aimed at achieving “flexible working” such as fixed-term or part-time contracts, secondment of personnel and – more recently – contracts to provide services have been more widespread. However, as German case law
The Tribunal administratif du travail recently released Major c. Nova DM Média Canada inc., 2016 QCTAT 4423, which clarified an employer’s burden of proof to demonstrate that an employee was laid off as part of an administrative reorganization rather than dismissed not for good and sufficient cause.
In this decision, administrative judge François