On 19 July 2022, in the case Meda v. AutoZone, a Los Angeles-based California Court of Appeal set some guidance on how employers may comply with the State’s workplace seating requirement.
This decision stresses that whether the employer has “provided” a seat to employees raises a question requiring consideration of a variety of factors, such as distance from the seat to the workstation, employer notice that seats may be used and how often employees use them.
In Public Prosecutor v Manta Equipment (S) Pte Ltd [2022] SGHC 157 (“Manta Equipment“), the High Court reviewed the sentencing framework with harsher penalties against employers who fail to ensure the health and safety of employees at work under the Workplace Safety and Health Act 2006 (WSHA).
On 19 July 2022, the Belgian Data Protection Authority (DPA) stated that communicating an employee’s sensitive health data to other employees without their specific consent and including this data in a minute of a meeting is a violation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
On 17 March 2022, the Taipei High Administrative Court, in 109-Su-1046 Decision, stated the employment relationship between a digital delivery platform and a delivery persons.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld a termination for cause for slapping a colleague’s buttocks and later joked about it.
The decision clears the difference between common law “just cause” and statutory “wilful misconduct", stating that the employee was entitled to receive statutory termination payments.
The Tokyo District Court rulled that a restaurant review platform's unilateral change to its rankings algorithm violated the Japanese antitrust law that prohibits abuse of "superior bargaining power."
The decision shows that, even if Big Tech groups have long argued that their algorithms should be considered trade secrets in all circumstances, courts and regulators across the world have begun to challenge that position.
In the recent case of Bank of Uganda v Joseph Kibuuka, the Ugandan Court of Appeal has re-affirmed employers’ right to terminate an employee without reason by either giving notice or payment in lieu of notice.
Later, the Industrial Court, in the case of Asiimwe Apollo v Law Development Centre,stated that employers must give reasons before an employment contract is terminated.
The different treatment depends on the nature of the termination. In a disciplinary dismissal a reason has to be given, while this is not necessary where the employer’s decision is related to a need for restructuring.
In Dong Wei v Shell Trading (Pte) Ltd and anor [2022], the Appellate Division of the Singapore High Court (SGHC(A)) provided guidance on the scope of an employer’s obligations to an employee who was the subject of internal investigations for wrongdoing.
It states that an employer, although he does not find it meaningful or productive to disclose the outcome of an investigation to an employee, should consider to do it in the interest of the employee.
Shanghai Yangpu District People’s Court stated that the dismissal of an employee who omitted to report a cross provincial trip against company’s health policy was lawful.
The Supreme Court, in two judgments (n°21-14.490 and n°21-15.247) of 11 May 2022 ruled that the so called 'Macron scale' - used to calculate compensation for unfairly dismissed employees – is compatible with the International Labour Organization Convention on Termination of Employment No. 158.
The Federal Labour Court on 4 May 2022 confirmed that in overtime proceedings, according to the German Law, employees must prove not only that they have worked overtime, but also that this has been ordered or at least approved by the employer.
On 14 March 2022, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas reinstated the previous independent contractor rule under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
The Social Division of the Supreme Court upheld the appropriateness of the installation, for the sole purpose of identifying and dismissing workers who had vandalised various vending machines, of hidden cameras in the canteen of a work centre.
Even though the workers had not been previously informed of the installation of the cameras, the seriousness of the acts committed by the workers justified their disciplinary dismissal for breach of contract.
On 9 February 2022, the High Court of Australia confirmed in two different decisions that, determining whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor, the most important elements are the written agreement and the contractual terms.
It also confirms that the Court is overtaking the multi-factorial test applied in the past in this kind of decisions.
A recent ruling from the Borgarting Court of Appeal has allowed dismissal by email upon delivery in the employee's mailbox to be accepted in some cases.
The decision is a clear exception to the general principle that employers must send dismissal notices to employees in person or by registered letter.
On 8 December 2021, the Federal Social Court stated that an employee who falls on his way, from bed to the home office for the first time in the morning, is protected by the statutory accident insurance.
The dismissal based on inspecting private correspondence of the employee by using employer's power of surveillance authority violates privacy and freedom of communication rights of the employee, guaranteed by the Turkish Constitution.
The decision confirmed the significance of informing employees about the employer’s right for inspection or getting consent for this when needed in case of internal investigation.
On 10 December 2021, ruling the case Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd v JL and Others, the Labour Court of South Africa stated that employers must take appropriate steps to investigate incidents of sexual harassment in the workplace.
The Court ordered to employer to pay a former employee 25,000 South African rand in damages for sexual harassment and to adopt a sexual harassment policy.
On 13 January 2022 in case No. C-514/20, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) provided a clarification on the inclusion of paid annual leave in the calculation of the volume of hours worked entitling to overtime pay.
It stated that, to determine whether the threshold of hours worked entitling the employee to an overtime bonus has been reached, the hours corresponding to the period of paid annual leave taken by the employee must be considered as hours worked.
On 10 December 2021, ruling the case Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd v JL and Others, the Labour Court of South Africa stated that employers must take appropriate steps to investigate incidents of sexual harassment in the workplace.
The Court ordered to employer to pay a former employee 25,000 South African rand in damages for sexual harassment and to adopt a sexual harassment policy.
On 13 January 2022 in case No. C-514/20, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) provided a clarification on the inclusion of paid annual leave in the calculation of the volume of hours worked entitling to overtime pay.
It stated that, to determine whether the threshold of hours worked entitling the employee to an overtime bonus has been reached, the hours corresponding to the period of paid annual leave taken by the employee must be considered as hours worked.
On 8 December 2021, the Labour Tribunal of Brussels ruled that Deliveroo riders should not be qualified as employees, but rather as self-employed workers.
It is the first ruling on the labour relationship qualification of workers in the platform economy by a labour tribunal or court in Belgium.
On 13 December 2021, the British Columbia Supreme Court has certified a class action lawsuit brought by former employees against the owners of the Pan Pacific Hotel in Vancouver.
This is one of the first certified class actions in Canada which deals with terminations arising from the Covid-19 pandemic.
On 1 December 2021, the Supreme Court of Ireland ruled over the nature of protected disclosure for the purposes of the Protected Disclosures Act, marking a clear line between an employee’s grievance and a protected disclosure.
In a recent decision on 28 October 2021, the CJUE stated that the period during which an employee attends vocational training required by the employer represents working time.
A decisive factor is the fact that the worker is required to be physically present at the place determined by the employer and to remain available to the employer in order to be able, if necessary, to provide his or her services immediately.
On 31 August 2021, the First Instance Argentine Labour Court ruled on the legal nature of the work relationship between a vehicle driver and a platform company.
It stated that a driver of the platform was misclassified as contactor and therefore, was under an unregistered employment relationship with the company.
On 13 September 2021, the Amsterdam District Court, in alignment with a previous judgment in a Deliveroo’s case, ruledin first instance that Uber drivers are employees and that the sectoral collective labour agreement (CAO Taxivervoer) would apply to Uber drivers, including pay requirements and some benefits.
The Court stated that three elements must be considered to decide if there is an employment agreement: personal performance of work, in exchange for payment of wages and in the service of the employer (a relationship of authority).
On 20 September 2021, the Indian Federation of App-based Transport Workers (IFAT) filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the Indian Supreme Court seeking to classify gig workers as ‘wage workers’ with better social security and employment benefits.
The petition demands that gig workers be declared as unorganised workers and be entitled to social security benefits under the Unorganised Workers Act 2008, that provides social security and welfare to unorganized workers with no employment contracts.
On 9 September 2021, the Labour Appeal Court of South Africa, Johannesburg, rules over fairness of dismissal of employees embarking on an unprotected strike.
The decision is based on the serious and dangerous circumstances of the strike.
The Court of Appeal reformed the decision of the Labour Court (Lagrange J) delivered on 17 September 2019, which had found the dismissal of the respondent employees to be substantively unfair and ordered their reinstatement.
Instead, the sanction of dismissal, according to the Court of Appeal, was fair, given the circumstances of the case and considering their decision to embark on an unprotected strike action at a critical business period and their persistent refusal, without bona fide reason provided, to comply with the ultimatum.
The New Zealand Employment Relations Authority has recently ruled that the Customs Service acted reasonably in dismissing an employee who refused to be vaccinated against covid-19.
On 1 October 2021, the Employment Relations Authority declined to grant interim reinstatement to four employees dismissed because employer considered their roles were covered by the Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Order 2021, but they refused to be vaccinated.
On 28 June 2021, the Labour Court of Appeal in Antwerp ruled that a candidate who was discriminated against on the grounds of both her disability and pregnancy during the recruitment process was entitled to two cumulative compensation awards.
The decision stated for the first time that the violation of several criteria may give rise to multiple compensation awards.
On 19 August 2021, the European Court of Human Rights received a request for interim measures from 672 members of the French fire service to suspend the requirement to be vaccinated as set out in section 12 of the French Law of 5 August 2021.
On 24 August 2021, the Court rejected the requests.
In the same way, on 7 September 2021, the Court refused requests for interim measures submitted in two applications lodged against Greece concerning the compulsory vaccination of health-sector professionals against Covid-19.
On 15 July 2021, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) stated that the provision on the application of the minimum wages of the country in which the work is habitually carried out cannot be waived, regardless of the existence of a transnational posting.
The decision delimits the perimeter within which the parties to an employment contract can freely choose the law to be applied.
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.
UK Supreme Court judgment in the Uber v Aslam case has affected the common law relating to employment relationship. This could have ramifications in other jurisdictions, such as South Asia, which follow the principles of English Common Law in determining the existence of an employment relationship.
Court Decisions
International News
Social Dialogue
Labour Laws and Regulations
Policy Responses and Strategies
Private Sector Contribution