In New Prime, Inc. v. Oliveira, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act’s (FAA) Section 1 exemption applies to transportation workers, regardless of whether they are classified as independent contractors or employees. No. 17-340 (Jan. 15, 2019)
Jan
29
2019
UK: Discrimination arising from disability: advantageous treatment is not unfavourable, even though it could have been more advantageous
The Supreme Court found that an enhanced pension that was based on the employee’s part-time working, that had been agreed as reasonable adjustments, did not amount to unfavourable treatment
Jan
29
2019
UK: Termination: employee’s dismissal while entitled to long-term disability benefits was in breach of an implied term
The EAT ruled that a term must be implied into the employment contract, that the employer could not terminate employment on the grounds of incapacity to work while the employee was entitled to disability benefits
Jan
29
2019
UK: Employment status: Uber drivers are workers
The Court of Appeal concluded, by a 2:1 majority, that although the contractual documentation indicated the Uber drivers were self-employed, they were workers and therefore entitled to national minimum wage (NMW), paid holiday and whistleblower protection.
Jan
29
2019
Sweden: While there were objective grounds for dismissal, an employee was entitled to damages due to the employer suspending the employee during the notice period
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
Jan
29
2019
Spain: Access to workers’ mail can imply fundamental rights violation
The Supreme Court has declared that access to employees’ mail without their consent and without having been previously advised implies fundamental rights violation
Jan
29
2019
Norway: Changes in the legislation on permanent employment and hiring from temporary work agencies
On 1 January 2019, new rules on permanent employment and hiring from temporary work agencies came into force. The new rules on permanent employment introduces a prohibition on so-called “Zero-hour”-contracts
Jan
29
2019
Mexico: Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (SCJN) determines that it is unconstitutional that the employers are not obliged to register domestic female employees in the Mexican Institute of Social Security (IMSS)
On December 5 2018, Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (SCJN) determined that it is unconstitutional that the employers are not obliged to register domestic female employees in the Mexican Institute of Social Security (IMSS) when resolving the Amparo Proceeding D.T. 9/2018. According to the SCJN, there is no constitutionally valid reason to exclude domestic workers from the Federal Labour Law (FLL) or from the Social Security Law (SSL), which prompts an unjust discrimination against them, especially against women since the domestic work is done mainly by them (according to the National Institute for Statistics and Geography or INEGI, 9 of every 10 domestic employees are women). Traditionally, domestic work has been exposed to inadequate work conditions, such as long work journeys and low salaries, which have situated it far away from the concept of decent work, which the International Labor Organization (ILO) has defined as work that dignifies and enables the development of own capabilities
Jan
29
2019
Italy: New ruling on the “Gig Economy” – Foodora’s “riders” cannot be qualified as independent contractors
Reforming its first instance ruling, Turin Court of Appeal has recognized that Foodora’s “riders” belong to the so-called “etero-orgnaizational” collaboration and shall be treated like employees
Jan
28
2019
Germany: The dismissal of a severely disabled person is not ineffective just because the representation of severely disabled persons was not immediately informed by the employer of the intention of termination
The dismissal of a severely disabled person is not ineffective just because the employer did not inform the representative body for severely disabled persons within the company of his intention to dismiss the disabled employee already before hearing the works council regarding the intended termination and before requesting the permission of the integration office for the termination