Law No. 2021-1040 of 5 August 2021 on health crisis management covers two main measures: the extension of the health pass (‘passe sanitaire’) and the compulsory vaccination for certain categories of people working in the health sector.
Failure by the employer to comply with the obligation to monitor compliance with the vaccination requirement is punishable by a fine of 1500 EUR.
On 4 August 2021, the Australian High Court unanimously allowed an appeal from a judgment of the Full Court of the Federal Court concerning the nature of casual employment, the so-called “Rossato case”.
Although the meaning of a ‘casual employee’ is now defined in legislation (the Fair Work Act) due to an amendment which came into effect in March this year, this decision still has legal and policy implications.
The High Court held that a "casual employee" is an employee who has no firm advanced commitment from the employer as to the duration of the employee's employment or the days (or hours) the employee will work, and provides no reciprocal commitment to the employer.
In determining whether a “firm advance commitment” exists, the focus must be on contractual obligations between the parties, because where there are express terms of the contract of employment (as varied from time to time), they must be given effect unless they are contrary to legislation.
Reliance on non-contractual aspects of the employment relationship (e.g. working in accordance with a roster) to assert there was a “firm advance commitment” was not accepted, as there were not express or implied terms of Mr Rossato’s contract. The Court unanimously determined that Mr Rossato was a casual employee, considering that his employment was expressly on an "assignment-by-assignment basis", he was entitled to accept or reject any offer of an assignment, and at the completion of each assignment the company was under no obligation to offer further assignments.
The long-standing case of Uber and others v. Aslam and others (2016) was finally settled by the UK Supreme Court that confirmed the views of the lower Courts stating Uber’s drivers status of “workers” within the UK legal system
The Supreme Court also determined what must be considered as working time for a Uber driver
The German Federal Labour Court (No. 9 AZR 102/201, 1 December 2020) re-classified the crowdworker as an employee
It determined also that for remuneration purposes, the company shall not be bound by pre-established fees that the worker received as a self-employed worker.