The Employment Appeal Tribunal has confirmed that an employee can claim victimisation if they act honestly, even if the discrimination allegation they made was made for an ulterior motive.
The Court of Appeal decided that a serious assault by the company’s managing director at spontaneous post-Christmas party drinks which resulted in an employee suffering brain damage was sufficiently connected to the managing director’s job for the company to be vicariously liable for the employee’s injury.
The Court of Appeal has found that supermarket chain Morrisons was vicariously liable for the actions of a rogue employee who, driven by a grudge against the company, took payroll data relating to 100,000 employees and published it online.
A succession of fixed-term employment contracts, with no waiting period (“gap”) between each contract, is lawful, for the same employee and the same position, only if each contract has been concluded for the one of the reasons provided for by the Labor Code, namely the replacement of an absent employee, a seasonal contract, or, finally, a “contrat d’usage”.
The Employee filed a lawsuit against the Company to claim payment of compensation for performance of non-competition obligation. Through the judicial process, the Court eventually ruled that the Company shall compensate the Employee for performance of non-competition.
The Court Held that the Employee Shall Still Refund the Housing Subsidy back to the Company even where the Company’s Termination Decision on the Employee Has been Ruled as Wrongful.
The highest German labor court has ruled that an employee is not entitled to claim a lump sum for delay in the amount of 40 € from the employer in case of a delayed bonus payment.
An employment agreement has always been considered as an indivisible whole. In actual practice, however, partial termination of the employment agreement does occur. It has long been debated whether a transition payment (partial or otherwise) is due in the event of partial termination. Recently, the Dutch Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) clarified this matter (HR 14 September 2018, ECLI:NL:HR:2018:1617).
A Federal Court Judge has stated that the provision of a minimum period of notice under section 117 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) does not proscribe the implication of a term of reasonable notice into a contract of employment, responding to recent decisions to the contrary.
The Labour Court overruled two cases on interim measures as regards post termination restrictions for game programmers because the restrictions on non-solicitation of employees were deemed unreasonable towards the game programmers.