2011/31 Dismissal, not (discovery of) pregnancy, triggers dismissal protection time-bar (LU)

It was not until after being dismissed that the employee discovered that she was pregnant and had already been pregnant for a while at the time of her dismissal. Luxembourg law has such short time limits for nullifying a dismissal in these circumstances that the employee effectively had no dismissal protection. Nevertheless, the court held her to the statutory time limits and ruled against her.

2011/31 Dismissal, not (discovery of) pregnancy, triggers dismissal protection time-bar (LU)

It was not until after being dismissed that the employee discovered that she was pregnant and had already been pregnant for a while at the time of her dismissal. Luxembourg law has such short time limits for nullifying a dismissal in these circumstances that the employee effectively had no dismissal protection. Nevertheless, the court held her to the statutory time limits and ruled against her.

ECJ 20 January 2011, case C-463/09 (CLECE SA – v – María Socorro Martín Valor and Ayuntamiento de Cobisa), Transfer

“CLECE” is a cleaning company that had contracted with the municipality of Cobisa to...

ECJ 20 January 2011, case C-463/09 (CLECE SA – v – María Socorro Martín Valor and Ayuntamiento de Cobisa), Transfer

“CLECE” is a cleaning company that had contracted with the municipality of Cobisa to...

ECJ 18 January 2011, case C-272/10 (Souzana Berziki-Nikolakaki – v – ASEP and Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis), Fixed-term work

Ms Berziki was employed as a full-time microbiologist by the University of Thessaloniki on the...

ECJ 18 January 2011, case C-272/10 (Souzana Berziki-Nikolakaki – v – ASEP and Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis), Fixed-term work

Ms Berziki was employed as a full-time microbiologist by the University of Thessaloniki on the...

2011/44 Dismissal for Using Social Media at Work - Is It Fair? (UK)

The Employment Tribunal dismissed an employee’s claim for unfair dismissal where the employee had made negative comments on Facebook about a customer who subsequently complained to the employer. Whilst the employee had a right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, her employer’s action was justified because of the risk of damage to their reputation. The dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses available to a reasonable employer.

2011/44 Dismissal for Using Social Media at Work - Is It Fair? (UK)

The Employment Tribunal dismissed an employee’s claim for unfair dismissal where the employee had made negative comments on Facebook about a customer who subsequently complained to the employer. Whilst the employee had a right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, her employer’s action was justified because of the risk of damage to their reputation. The dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses available to a reasonable employer.

2011/26 Nine fixed-term contracts: no abuse (IR)

An employee was given two consecutive fixed-term contracts, lasting a total of almost one year. Then, after a break of about four months, she was given seven consecutive fixed-term contracts lasting a total of 3   years. Irish law allows “continuous” fixed-term employment up to a maximum of four years. It was therefore relevant whether the second series of seven contracts constituted a continuation of the initial series of two contracts. This was not the case, but the employer was nevertheless ordered to pay  5,000 for failure to specify the reason why the ninth contract was not permanent.

2011/26 Nine fixed-term contracts: no abuse (IR)

An employee was given two consecutive fixed-term contracts, lasting a total of almost one year. Then, after a break of about four months, she was given seven consecutive fixed-term contracts lasting a total of 3   years. Irish law allows “continuous” fixed-term employment up to a maximum of four years. It was therefore relevant whether the second series of seven contracts constituted a continuation of the initial series of two contracts. This was not the case, but the employer was nevertheless ordered to pay  5,000 for failure to specify the reason why the ninth contract was not permanent.