Top of page ↑
Log out
Reset filters
    • Verdicts from/at until
2,726 search results

Case report

2014-08-22

Netherlands

2014/37 Transfer despite insolvency (NL)

The owner of three companies purposely caused them become insolvent[1]. Before doing so, he incorporated three new companies. Immediately following the insolvencies, those new companies took over the activities that the insolvent companies had previously performed and took over almost all of the employees. The owner relied on the provision of Dutch law according to which the transfer of activities from an insolvent employer is not subject to the rules on transfers of undertakings. He counted on the new companies not having to pay the employees their salaries and other benefits that the insolvent companies had left unpaid. However, the court described the combination of events as a transfer of the undertakings and ordered the new companies to pay the salary arrears.

Kantonrechter Leeuwarden (Cantonal judge Leeuwarden), 2014-08-22

Summary

2014-08-22

2014/37 Transfer despite insolvency (NL)

The owner of three companies purposely caused them become insolvent[1]. Before doing so, he incorporated three new companies. Immediately following the insolvencies, those new companies took over the activities that the insolvent companies had previously performed and took over almost all of the employees. The owner relied on the provision of Dutch law according to which the transfer of activities from an insolvent employer is not subject to the rules on transfers of undertakings. He counted on the new companies not having to pay the employees their salaries and other benefits that the insolvent companies had left unpaid. However, the court described the combination of events as a transfer of the undertakings and ordered the new companies to pay the salary arrears.

Kantonrechter Leeuwarden (Cantonal judge Leeuwarden), 2014-08-22

Case report

2014-08-22

Finland

2014/59 Employee may interrupt (unpaid) parental leave to start new period of (paid) maternity leave (FI)

On 13 February 2014 the ECJ delivered its judgment in the Kultarinta case (see EELC 2014-1 page 34)1. The Finnish Labour Court, which was the referring court in that case, has now ruled on the validity of a provision in several collective agreements in the light of the ECJ’s ruling. The provision in question deals with where an employee wishes to interrupt a period of (unpaid) parental leave in favour of a new period of (paid) maternity leave in connection with another pregnancy.

Työtuomioistuin (Labour Court), 2014-08-22

Summary

2014-08-22

2014/59 Employee may interrupt (unpaid) parental leave to start new period of (paid) maternity leave (FI)

On 13 February 2014 the ECJ delivered its judgment in the Kultarinta case (see EELC 2014-1 page 34)1. The Finnish Labour Court, which was the referring court in that case, has now ruled on the validity of a provision in several collective agreements in the light of the ECJ’s ruling. The provision in question deals with where an employee wishes to interrupt a period of (unpaid) parental leave in favour of a new period of (paid) maternity leave in connection with another pregnancy.

Työtuomioistuin (Labour Court), 2014-08-22

Case report

2014-08-14

Greece

2014/64 Court orders union to stop using false and misleading slogan while boycotting employer’s products but allows boycott per se (GR)

A union called a strike, demanding reinstatement of redundant employees and the reopening of a plant. The strike was declared unlawful and the union was ordered to stop striking. The union then began a country-wide boycott of the employer’s products. The employer sought a court order, by way of interim relief measure, against the union to stop all actions leading to the boycott. The order was granted only partially.

Athens Court of First Instance, 2014-08-14

Summary

2014-08-14

2014/64 Court orders union to stop using false and misleading slogan while boycotting employer’s products but allows boycott per se (GR)

A union called a strike, demanding reinstatement of redundant employees and the reopening of a plant. The strike was declared unlawful and the union was ordered to stop striking. The union then began a country-wide boycott of the employer’s products. The employer sought a court order, by way of interim relief measure, against the union to stop all actions leading to the boycott. The order was granted only partially.

Athens Court of First Instance, 2014-08-14

Case report

2014-07-22

Austria

2014/66 Effects of changes in working time on annual paid leave (AT)

What happens to accumulated paid leave when a worker moves from full-time to part-time? The ECJ ruled on this question twice, in 2010 and again in 2013. The Austrian Supreme Court is taking a position that, according to some, is at odds with those rulings.

Oberster Gerichtshof (Austrian Supreme Court), 2014-07-22

Summary

2014-07-22

2014/66 Effects of changes in working time on annual paid leave (AT)

What happens to accumulated paid leave when a worker moves from full-time to part-time? The ECJ ruled on this question twice, in 2010 and again in 2013. The Austrian Supreme Court is taking a position that, according to some, is at odds with those rulings.

Oberster Gerichtshof (Austrian Supreme Court), 2014-07-22

Case report

2014-07-22

United Kingdom

2014/48 Court should not add new words to a clearly drafted restrictive covenant (UK)

The Court of Appeal has overturned a decision of the High Court to add words into a non-competition covenant in an employee’s contract so that it could be enforced by the employer. Where the meaning of a restriction is clear a court should not interpret it by adding additional words, even if this means the covenant will not be enforceable.

Court of Appeal, 2014-07-22

Summary

2014-07-22

2014/48 Court should not add new words to a clearly drafted restrictive covenant (UK)

The Court of Appeal has overturned a decision of the High Court to add words into a non-competition covenant in an employee’s contract so that it could be enforced by the employer. Where the meaning of a restriction is clear a court should not interpret it by adding additional words, even if this means the covenant will not be enforceable.

Court of Appeal, 2014-07-22