Top of page ↑
Log out
Reset filters
    • Verdicts from/at until
2,723 search results

Case report

2011-06-06

Belgium

2011/48 Inactive stand-by periods can be compensated differently from active working hours (BE)

Remuneration for stand-by periods, during which an employee is simply asked to be available by phone in order to answer urgent calls, without the obligation to be at a specific location or to perform his habitual tasks, need not be equivalent to the remuneration for active working hours.

Cour de cassation (Belgian Supreme Court), 2011-06-06

Summary

2011-06-06

2011/48 Inactive stand-by periods can be compensated differently from active working hours (BE)

Remuneration for stand-by periods, during which an employee is simply asked to be available by phone in order to answer urgent calls, without the obligation to be at a specific location or to perform his habitual tasks, need not be equivalent to the remuneration for active working hours.

Cour de cassation (Belgian Supreme Court), 2011-06-06

Case report

2011-05-29

Italy

2011/63: American ‘employer’ cannot be sued in Italy (IT)

An Italian salesman may sue the American company with which he has a contract before an Italian court, but only if his work is connected sufficiently to Italy, which was not the case in this dispute.

Court of Rome, Labour section , 2011-05-29

Summary

2011-05-29

2011/63: American ‘employer’ cannot be sued in Italy (IT)

An Italian salesman may sue the American company with which he has a contract before an Italian court, but only if his work is connected sufficiently to Italy, which was not the case in this dispute.

Court of Rome, Labour section , 2011-05-29

Case report

2011-05-27

United Kingdom

2011/60: Dismissal for refusing pay cut may be fair provided employer has sound business reasons and acts reasonably (UK)

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (‘EAT’) has confirmed that it may be fair for an employer to dismiss an employee for refusing to agree to reduction in pay if it has good business reasons for implementing the change and acts reasonably in the circumstances. The focus in such cases should be on the reasonableness or otherwise of the employer’s behaviour rather than the reasonableness of the employee’s refusal to accept the new terms.

Employment Appeal Tribunal, 2011-05-27

Summary

2011-05-27

2011/60: Dismissal for refusing pay cut may be fair provided employer has sound business reasons and acts reasonably (UK)

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (‘EAT’) has confirmed that it may be fair for an employer to dismiss an employee for refusing to agree to reduction in pay if it has good business reasons for implementing the change and acts reasonably in the circumstances. The focus in such cases should be on the reasonableness or otherwise of the employer’s behaviour rather than the reasonableness of the employee’s refusal to accept the new terms.

Employment Appeal Tribunal, 2011-05-27

Case report

2011-05-27

United Kingdom

2011/38 No power for tribunal to apportion liability for unlawful discrimination (UK)

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that an Employment Tribunal had no power to apportion liability for damages between respondents where several respondents were found guilty of the same act of race discrimination. Where more than one party is found guilty of discrimination and the damage is ‘indivisible’, liability should be ‘joint and several’ as a matter of law - that is, the claimant is entitled to recover the entirety of his or her loss from any of the respondents.

Employment Appeal Tribunal, 2011-05-27

Summary

2011-05-27

2011/38 No power for tribunal to apportion liability for unlawful discrimination (UK)

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that an Employment Tribunal had no power to apportion liability for damages between respondents where several respondents were found guilty of the same act of race discrimination. Where more than one party is found guilty of discrimination and the damage is ‘indivisible’, liability should be ‘joint and several’ as a matter of law - that is, the claimant is entitled to recover the entirety of his or her loss from any of the respondents.

Employment Appeal Tribunal, 2011-05-27

Case report

2011-05-26

Netherlands

2011/20 Activity transferred 80/20% to A and B: employee goes across to A for 100% (NL)

A cleaning company had a contract with the owner of two buildings, A and B. The plaintiff, an employee of the cleaning company, spent about 80% of his working time supervising the cleaners in building A and the remaining 20% of his working time cleaning in building B. Following a competitive bid, his employer lost the contract in respect of building A to one competitor and the contract in respect of building B to another competitor. The court found that he transferred fully (100%) into the employment of the competitor that won the contract in respect of building A.

Rechtbank Den Haag (District Court of The Hague), 2011-05-26

Summary

2011-05-26

2011/20 Activity transferred 80/20% to A and B: employee goes across to A for 100% (NL)

A cleaning company had a contract with the owner of two buildings, A and B. The plaintiff, an employee of the cleaning company, spent about 80% of his working time supervising the cleaners in building A and the remaining 20% of his working time cleaning in building B. Following a competitive bid, his employer lost the contract in respect of building A to one competitor and the contract in respect of building B to another competitor. The court found that he transferred fully (100%) into the employment of the competitor that won the contract in respect of building A.

Rechtbank Den Haag (District Court of The Hague), 2011-05-26