If an employee walks out, refusing to work his notice period, can an employer elect to keep the contract of employment alive, without paying the recalcitrant employee?
In the case of Sunrise Brokers LLP v Rodgers [2014] EWHC 2633 (QB), the High Court held that the answer to this question is yes.
A radical change to UK pension law is expected to affect tens of thousands of organisations with UK-based employees in 2014. This follows the imposition of an unprecedented obligation on employers to “automatically enrol” eligible employees in, and to contribute financially to, a pension scheme that meets specific, carefully defined criteria.
As first discussed in McDermott Will & Emery’s Privacy and Data Protection 2013 Year In Review, state legislatures are enacting laws limiting employers’ ability to access the social media accounts of their employees.
Thus far in 2014, four more states – Louisiana, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Wisconsin – have enacted social media legislation, bringing the total number of states with such legislation to 16.
How State Social Media Laws Effect Employers
Generally, state social media laws bar employers from requiring or requesting that an employee or applicant provide log-in credentials for his/her personal social media account. Some of these state social media laws also prohibit an employer from requiring an employee to add another employee or supervisor to a social media account “friends” or contacts list or to access personal social media accounts in the employer’s presence. Many of the state social media laws also prohibit employers from basing adverse employment action on an employee’s refusal to comply with an employer’s request for social media account access.
While these laws offer employees added protection with respect to their personal social media accounts, most of the laws feature important carve-outs. Among other exceptions, most state social media laws allow employers to: access publicly-available social media about employees, restrict employees’ access to social media during work hours and conduct certain types of employment-related investigations that may involve an employee’s social media account(s).
Notably, all four of the recently-enacted laws allow employers to monitor the social media activity of employees when employees access their social media accounts through employer-provided IT systems.
Compliance Tips
Since the terms of state social media laws vary, employers should consider establishing and following basic guidelines to ensure compliance with the myriad laws. Key steps are:
The Supreme Court of the United States’ recent decision prohibiting warrantless mobile phone searches incident to arrest underscores unique privacy concerns raised by modern technology. The decision has an immediate impact on an individual’s rights under the Fourth Amendment, and may also have an impact on evolving areas of white collar and employment law.
by Katie Clark and James Noble
With effect from 30 June 2014, the right to request flexible working has expanded so that it now applies to any employee with at least 26 weeks’ service. Employers should amend their flexible working policy documents to reflect the changes to the regime and plan in advance how they will deal with a possible increase in the number of requests.
Proposed legislation introduced by Governor Patrick to eliminate most forms of non-competition agreement in Massachusetts may be enacted before July 31, 2014. This legislation creates significant risks for employers with employees in Massachusetts who are currently subject to non-competition agreements.
Read the full article.The German Federal Labor Court made a very clear ruling regarding job applicants in Germany who are not offered the position for which such applicants applied. In the Federal Labor Court’s view, a rejected applicant has no right to know whether another applicant was offered or accepted the position. (Federal Labor Court, verdict dated April 25, 2013, case number 8 AZR 287/08)
This case concerned a plaintiff who was born in the former Soviet Union in 1961. She applied for a position that was advertised by a German company, the defendant in this case. Even though the plaintiff fulfilled all required qualifications, she was rejected and did not receive a job offer. The plaintiff presumed that this decision was based on discrimination for her gender, age and origin. The Federal Labor Court submitted the case to the European Court of Justice to determine whether the job applicant had a right to information regarding why she was not selected, or if another applicant was selected for the position. The European Court of Justice rendered its verdict on April 19, 2012 (case number C415/10), and stated that rejected job applicants had no right to this information under European law.
The German Federal Labor Court dismissed the case because it could not detect any evidence of discrimination. The mere refusal of the defendant to disclose any information related to the application process and/or the hiring could not establish the presumption of an inadmissible discrimination, according to Section 7 of the German General Equal Treatment Act.
However, this ruling has to be viewed with great caution. The German decision is not in line with the aforementioned ruling in the same matter of the European Court of Justice. The European judges, in contrast to the German Court, stressed that the complete refusal to give out any information regarding the hiring could actually be evaluated as a presumption of possible discrimination. This remarkable difference in the two verdicts was not explained by the German judges and as long as their reasoning remains unclear, German employers should provide a short explanation to rejected applicants when they ask the reason why they have been rejected for an open position (e.g., the other candidate better satisfies the qualification profile, made a better impression at the job interview, seems to be a more motivated and energetic person, etc.).
by Katie Clark and Sharon Tan
In a judgment handed down today, the UK Supreme Court has confirmed that LLP members are “workers”, even if they receive a share of the LLP’s profits. These individuals are therefore entitled to the rights and protections that UK legislation affords to workers, including protection against detriment for whistleblowing, and pension scheme auto-enrolment.
As we mentioned in our last UK Employment Alert, the government has introduced a new, pre-claim conciliation procedure for employment disputes. As of 6 May 2014, that procedure became mandatory.
Before lodging the vast majority of Employment Tribunal claims, a potential claimant is now required to contact the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) and notify it of his/her intention to do so. The purpose is to promote the earlier settlement of disputes but, as you will see from the example timeframe set out in this article, the early conciliation (EC) process may itself be the cause of dispute.
Several international news sources recently reported that French law now prevents employees from answering their mobile phones or professional e-mails after 6.00 pm (see articles in the Guardian and USA Today, among others). The truth is somewhat less sensational but somewhat more administratively burdensome for certain consulting companies.
Subscribe
