On 20 December 2023, the Argentine government introduced Decree 70/2023, aimed, among others, at reshaping the employment landscape.
This reform was, however,halted. Trade unions obtained injunctions against the enforcement of the labour chapter and a partial ruling by a labour court has suspended the effects of the new law.
The decision now lies with the national Supreme Court of Justice.
On 8 February 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court decided on whistleblower protections under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
The case clarifies the standards for proving retaliation against whistleblowers in publicly traded companies.
The Supreme Court clarified that whistleblowers are required to show that their protected activity contributed to the adverse employment action without the need to demonstrate retaliatory intent on the employer's part.
In R v Greater Sudbury (City) 2023 SCC 28, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that the City of Sudbury, which had contracted with a third-party constructor for a construction project, had duties as an "employer" to ensure worker health and safety in the workplace, by the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act (the "OHSA").
On 2 November 2023, the Norwegian Supreme Court stated that offshore workers’ so-called “available time” - when the employee is available for the employer - pursuant to their CBA does not correspond to “working hours” under the Working Environment Act (“WEA”).
On 16 November 2023, the Fair Work Commission ruled on an employer's right to refuse a request for remote work.
The decision marks an important first step following the entry into force of the new flexible work legislation, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay), that came into force at the beginning of the year.
Among the significant changes introduced by the law is granting the Fair Work Commission the power to decide a dispute over a flexible work request.
On 15 November 2023, the Court of Appeal of Uganda reaffirmed the employer's right to terminate the employment relationship by providing notice or payment in lieu of notice.
It stated that where the notice period is observed, or compensation is paid in lieu thereof, employers are not obliged to give reasons for dismissal under Section 65(1)(a) of the Employment Act.
It is based on the assumption that termination of employment is distinct from dismissal for misconduct or poor performance, which requires procedures and reasons.