Legislative changes concerning the Employment Protection Act (1982:80) will entitle employees to employment protection until they reach 69 years of age, prolonging the period of employment protection by two years to adapt to increased average lifespans
The Labour Court ruled that an employer had lawful grounds to summarily dismiss a construction worker due to his theft of building materials. However, the employer’s lack of information and delayed payment of accrued vacation entitlement in connection with the summary dismissal entitled the worker to SEK 17,000 in damages
Court ruling that the actions of an assistant nurse in a care home had been inappropriate and warranting of criticism, but not proven to constitute legal grounds for summary dismissal, and that her employer was liable to pay SEK 370,000 in damages
Date: Wednesday 12 June 5 p.m. Central European Time (11 a.m. New York time)
Identifying key wage and hour risks confronting international retailers and strategies for compliance
- The webinar will feature a panel discussion among attorneys from United Kingdom, Canada, the United States and France with deep experience representing employers confronted with class action wage and hour cases and the myriad of issues arising from the unique scheduling demands of the retail industry as they collide with the growing push to ensure through local laws that employees receive sufficient time off and compensation.
- Jonathan Dye (Filion Wakely Thorup Angeletti in Canada)
- Eric R. Magnus (Jackson Lewis in USA)
- Olivier Kress (Flichy Grangé in France)
- James Major (Clyde & Co in United Kingdom)
- Moderator: Rich Landau (Jackson Lewis in USA)
Date and time:
June 12, 2019 5:00 pm - 6:00 pm (CEST)
An employee of a care centre for minors was summarily dismissed due to, inter alia, disobedience and inappropriate behaviour. The Labour Court found that the employee’s actions had constituted a violation of her employment obligations, but that the actions were not serious enough to constitute grounds for summary dismissal
Even in the era of far-reaching international trade agreements and regional economic and political partnerships, the majority of laws and regulations governing the workplace are still determined by the individual countries where employees work.
Spanning 6 continents, L&E Global’s member firms are ideally situated to provide clients with pragmatic, commercial advice necessary to achieve their objectives. Our members work closely with corporate, legal, human resources departments and corporate executives across a variety of sectors and industries to address the strategic and tactical issues that arise in the workplace.
Discover the most important labour and employment rules, regulations and best practices specific to each jurisdiction, conveniently together in one place.
An accounting firm filed an interim injunction that its managing director was obliged to observe a notice period of six months, as to prohibit the managing director to compete with the accounting firm following his resignation. While no agreement between the parties provided for a specific notice period, the Labour Court deemed it reasonable that the managing director should observe a notice period of six months
The Labour Court has established that, when calculating time of employment for employees in a redundancy situation following a transfer of undertakings, an employee’s previous periods of intermittent employments shall be included when determining the aggregate time of employment, if such intermittent employment regularly occurred in connection with the transfer of undertakings
Following legislative changes to the Sick Pay Act (Sw. lag (1991:1047) om sjuklön), employees are entitled sick pay, subject to a deduction, as of day one of the sickness period. The so-called qualifying or waiting day has been abolished
Court ruling that an employer had objective grounds to dismiss an employee due to the employee’s failure to follow instructions and policies. However, the employer’s decision to suspend the employee from work during the notice period was not deemed necessary and the employee was awarded damages