Search

(Source: Court of Cassation, Social Division, Ruling No. 559 of 3 April 2019, Appeal No. 16-20.490, published in the Official Bulletin of Rulings of the Court of Cassation) ANNOTATION In 2016, it was estimated that some 40.3 million people worldwide were victims of modern slavery, including 24.9 million victims of forced Fr. 1 25 labour and 15.4 million victims of forced marriage. This ECHR judgement is explicitly referred to by the Social Division of the Court of Cassation in its ruling of 3 April 2019. 21 Fr. 1 FRANCE Court of Cassation, Social Division Ms A. X… v. Ms B. E… and others, 3 April 2019 Forced labour - modern slavery - criminal liability and damages - liability under international law - underage victim - victim's right to full compensation for non-pecuniary injury suffered and economic loss HEADNOTES Facts A young girl, born in Morocco in 1982, was adopted in that country under the Kalafa system applicable under local law by a married couple of Moroccans residing in France. ILO Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), ratified by France on 24 June 1937 Article 2 For the purposes of this Convention the term forced or compulsory labour shall mean all work or service which is exacted from Fr. 1 23 any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily. [Extracted from the article]

We recently reiterated that courts may not rely on state contract principles to "reshape traditional individualized arbitration by mandating classwide arbitration procedures without the parties' consent." Indeed, we recognized just last term that with class arbitration "the virtues Congress originally saw in arbitration, its speed and simplicity and inexpensiveness, would be shorn away and arbitration would end up looking like the litigation it was meant to displace. Arbitration of disputes about the meaning and 8 ILLR 39 interpretation of collective bargaining agreements has been common since before World War II, but arbitration involving statutory and individual contract claims is relatively recent. [Extracted from the article]

Workplace harassment and violation of fundamental rights Secondly, the issue submitted for the consideration of the Constitutional Court shows once again that workplace harassment can be so multiform that it is often multi-offensive, damaging several fundamental rights at the same time. 9 Sp. 1 SPAIN Constitutional Court (First Chamber) Decision No. 56/2019 of 6 May 2019 Workplace harassment in public employment - the fundamental right to moral integrity HEADNOTES Facts The undisputed facts which involved a civil servant can be summarized as follows: (i) the Ministry of the Interior created a new position of "advisory member" in management without defining any scope of powers when the current applicant for protection before the Constitutional Court was assigned to it; (ii) the administration maintained him in a situation of complete unemployment for a long time (approximately a year and a half), without information about his duties, without assigning him tasks and without calling him to any work meeting, a situation that the other officials of the entity did not suffer, as they were assigned specific tasks and they communicated individually with the board's Secretary General; (iii) on multiple occasions, the plaintiff unsuccessfully requested from the Secretary General of Management and the Secretary of State for Security that he be assigned responsibilities or be transferred to another position (several formal letters and emails appear in the proceedings; also on file is the testimony of several officials about the plaintiff 's constant complaints); (iv) as the situation of inactivity that he had been suffering persisted and as the attempts made to be assigned tasks or assigned to another position were unsuccessful, the plaintiff denounced his situation according to the applicable Protocol of action against workplace harassment in the General State Administration. [Extracted from the article]

It explained that to "deny the right to appeal simply because the defendant has sought to "buy off" the individual private claims of the named plaintiffs […] would frustrate the objectives of class actions" and "invite waste of judicial resources" by requiring multiple plaintiffs with low-value claims to bring suit. Moreover, the reports only identified the other employees by their employee number, and the defendant did not fulfill the plaintiff's discovery requests for the identity of all the employees. There, a plaintiff in a putative class action suit had not yet moved for class certification when the defendant offered the plaintiff his individual monetary damages as well as requested injunctive relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. PART SIX ADMINISTRATION - JUDICIAL AND GENERAL 443 U. S. A. 2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Gammella v. P .F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc. Minimum reporting pay under the Wage Act and the minimum fair wage law - class actions HEADNOTES Facts The claimant alleged that his employer frequently violated the state requirement that employees who report for a scheduled work shift of three or more hours are required to be paid for at least three hours' wages at no less than the minimum wage. [Extracted from the article]

Khampepe J emphasised that 'the principle finds application after a collective agreement has been concluded', namely when the agreement is extended 'at the behest of the majority after the collective agreement process has run its course'. The only restriction on their right to strike is the temporary existence of a collective agreement concluded by a majority trade union in respect of a workplace that has been extended to all employees covered by the agreement including its members. 433 S.A. 1 SOUTH AFRICA Constitutional Court of South Africa Chamber of Mines of South Africa (acting in its own name and obo Harmony Gold Mining Company Ltd and Others) v. Association of Mineworkers and Construction Workers Union and Others (2017) 38 ILJ 831 (CC) Right to strike - whether peace clause in collective agreement binds employees who are not members of the trade union - whether the extension of that agreement on non-members is an infringement of the right to strike HEADNOTES Facts The Labour Relations Act No. 66 of 1995 (LRA) promotes collective bargaining by providing in section 23 for the binding nature of collective agreements concluded between one or more trade unions and one or more employers. [Extracted from the article]

The transaction agreed upon in a collective agreement covers all workers included in the negotiation, regardless of whether they are members of the trade union which signed the agreement. Another interesting point in Judgement No. 734/2018 refers to workers covered by the collective agreement through which the workers' individual rights are compromised. 427 Ur. 1 URUGUAY Supreme Court of Justice, Case No. 734/2018 of 31 May 2018 Labour transaction - transaction within a collective agreement - individual rights and collective agreement - transaction entered into by the trade union HEADNOTES Facts A group of workers who worked for an outsourcing company that provided concierge and courier services at a State-run hospital claimed payment of compensation for dismissal, and other items such as rest breaks, overtime pay and attendance bonus. [Extracted from the article]

However, the reduction applies only to future wages and cannot affect the wages that have already accrued, because those wages already belong to the individual workers and are beyond the reach of the union. What is notable about this case, however, is that Agreements # 1 and #2 did not go as far as actually reducing the amount of the worker's wages; it was only an agreement to defer payment of those wages. Meanwhile, the appellee and the union entered into another agreement (Agreement #3) in August 2015, similarly reducing the workers' pay by 20 percent for another 12 months. [Extracted from the article]

I t concluded that the language of the franchise agreement was not determinative of the reality of the relationship between Mr Bourque and Modern, and that despite the language in the franchise agreement, Mr Bourque was in fact an "employee" as defined by the Act, not an independent contractor. Once Mr Bourque terminated his relationship with Modern, it was Modern, not Mr Bourque, who reassigned the contracts which Mr Bourque had paid to obtain. Similarly, the renewal of the franchise agreement between Mr Bourque and Modern was contingent on Mr Bourque's compliance with the obligations to the Bank as set out in the cleaning services contract. Modern paid Mr Bourque through direct deposit, after deducting amounts for franchising fees, the loans and the products sold by Modern to Mr Bourque. [Extracted from the article]

If a collective bargaining agreement can regulate the situation of hiring and selection, but if persons or companies that are not employing workers would not be bound by them, then the collective bargaining agreement would miss its aim. According to the Council of Ministers, the Act of 5 December 1968 concerning collective bargaining agreements and joint committees (referred to here as CBA-Act) does not define the concept of "employer". 1 401 employees at the time of the transfer, it could not be bound by any of the sector-level provisions of the CBA n° 32bis either, as also that CBA would require an employer to have at least one subordinate employee in order to be applicable. The new service provider argued that it could not be bound by the sector-level collective bargaining agreement as it did not employ any worker at the time of the award of the contract, and hence it could not be considered an employer bound by the sectorlevel collective bargaining agreement. [Extracted from the article]

The issue in question was: Where the state law requires public employee unions to negotiate common interests as a committee, can the assertion of an impasse by one union be treated by management as triggering statutory impasse resolution procedures for all of the unions? Pointing to the absence of the word "committee" in RSA 273-A:12 and the references to individual bargaining units, see RSA 273-A:12, I (a)(1)-(2), the NEPBA asserts that requiring all five unions to maintain the bargaining committee format through impasse resolution procedures "improperly reads a committee bargaining requirement into RSA 273-A:12 that does not exist. 381 U. S. A. 3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Supreme Court of New Hampshire Appeal of New England Police Benevolent Ass'n, Inc. Public sector collective bargaining - mandatory multi-union bargaining HEADNOTES Facts Five unions represent state employees and by state law must bargain as a single group. During the pendency of these complaints, the State advised all five unions that it would select a mediator and continued to assert that all of the unions must participate in impasse mediation "because the issues to be resolved affected all bargaining units. [Extracted from the article]

Subsequent proceedings in the Employment Relations Authority (First Union Inc v. Jacks Hardware Ltd [2019] NZERA 374) fixed the term of the collective agreement and the 372 ILLR 39 rates of remuneration to be paid under it. 371 N. Z. 1 NEW ZEALAND New Zealand Employment Court Jacks Hardware Ltd v. First Union Inc [2019] NZEmpC 20 Good faith bargaining - collective agreement - law permitting fixing of provisions - good faith breach HEADNOTES Facts Jacks Hardware Ltd trades under the franchise of Mitre 10 Ltd in Dunedin and Mosgiel in the South Island of New Zealand. No collective agreement was concluded despite bargaining over a considerable period of time and seven Employment Relations Authority determinations, six Employment Court judgements and two sets of recommendations from the Employment Relations Authority following facilitation. The only effective remedy available to the union in the face of the breach of the duty of good faith by Jacks Hardware was to apply to the Authority for it to fix the provisions of the collective agreement. [Extracted from the article]

Couriers are not free to work whenever they want to. 126 Foodora also "thins" its list of couriers on an annual basis by removing couriers who have not performed services for Foodora. Additionally, the Board begins its hunting analysis for whether the couriers fit into the limited category of "dependent contractor", rather than considering the broader question of whether allowing the couriers to bargain collectively fulfills the labour statute's purpose simply as "employees". 123 Foodora argues that couriers have little to no dependence on Foodora as couriers are free to (and often do) work for other food courier companies. PART FIVE COLLECTIVE LABOUR RELATIONS 349 Can. 1 CANADA Ontario Labour Relations Board Canadian Union of Postal Workers v. Foodora Inc. d.b.a. Foodora 2020 CanLII 16750 (ON LRB), [2020] O.L.R.D. No. 486 Collective bargaining - scope of "employee" - scope of "dependent contractor" - gig economy HEADNOTES Facts The Canadian Union of Postal Workers sought certification under the Ontario Labour Relations Act to be the exclusive collective bargaining agent for Foodora Inc. couriers in Toronto, claiming that the couriers were "dependent contractors" and thus granted collective bargaining rights under the Act. [Extracted from the article]

Still although that employee had no authority to dismiss the claimant, that employee's behaviour was attributed to the employer, allowing the claimant subsequently (successfully) to bring a constructive dismissal case. 329 G. B. 1 GREAT BRITAIN Supreme Court Royal Mail Group Ltd v. Jhuti Unfair dismissal - reason for dismissal - attribution of knowledge - whistleblowing protected disclosure legislation HEADNOTES Facts The facts of the case are set out at paragraphs 2-23 of the judgement by Lord Wilson in the Supreme Court ([2019] UKSC 55, [2020] IRLR 129). On this classic understanding of the raison d' être for employment law, there is an inherent imbalance of bargaining power between employer and employee when the employee is an individual, unlike the employer which is a collective. Overarchingly, however, Parliament has, by s 103A, provided that, where an employee's whistleblowing is the reason for it, a dismissal should automatically be unfair and should thus attract the remedies set out in Pt X; and, as noted in para [28] above, it has also, by s 47B(2), withdrawn the rights provided by that section from the whistleblowing employee who is subjected to a detriment which amounts to dismissal. [Extracted from the article]

If an employee's contract of employment is terminated by an employer during the period of notice in contravention of the applicable provisions on the termination of contracts of employment without notice, the employee shall be entitled to a compensation only. The termination of a contract of employment without notice due to the fault of the employee may not be effected later than one month of the employer's learning about the circumstance justifying a termination of the contract. However, the level of compensatory damages had to be reduced due to the limits set out in Article 60 of the Labour Code (referred to as the LC) under which "if an employee's contract of employment is terminated by an employer during the period of notice in contravention of the applicable provisions on termination of employment contracts without notice, the employee shall be entitled only to a compensation amount. In case of termination of a fixed-term contract of employment, the employee shall be entitled to compensation in the amount of remuneration for the period for which the contract was supposed to last, although in an amount not higher than due for the period of notice. [Extracted from the article]

313 It. 2 ITALY Court of Cassation Decision No. 12373 of 9 May 2019 Impossibility of contractual performance - physical incapacity to perform duties - dismissal - just cause or objective justified reason HEADNOTES Facts The airline company A. dismissed an employee, who was a flight technician, as a result of the fact that he had become physically incapable of performing his contractual duties. As a result, the employee M.C. appealed against the Court of Appeal's decision to the Court of Cassation. The employee M.C. petitioned the Employment Tribunal, which partially accepted his claim. [Extracted from the article]

If the termination conditions of the employee and the employer are compared, it is evident that the employee's right of termination is more restricted than that of the employer's, because the employee does not have a special right of termination. In the case of specific termination rights reserved only for the employer, such an agreement would lead to an alignment with the level of termination rights of the employee (quantitative symmetry). The required symmetry is reached by reducing the additional termination rights of one party (usually the employer) to the level of the termination rights of the other party (usually the employee). As claimed by the employer, it is true that an option granted to the employee for the same reason as contractually reserved for the employer would be pointless. [Extracted from the article]

Commonwealth public sector employment in Australia is additionally regulated through the Public Service Act 1999 (Cth) (PS Act) which has the express legislative objective in section 3 of establishing an "apolitical" public service, and establishes a framework for the effective and fair employment of APS employees. Section 13 APS Code of Conduct (11) An APS employee must at all times behave in a way that upholds: (a) the APS Values and APS Employment Principles; and (b) the integrity and good reputation of the employee's Agency and the APS. However, in the extant case, Ms Banerji was a public sector employee in the employment of the Australian Public Service, which serves the Commonwealth Government of Australia (there are also State Government public services). As appears from the text and context of ss 10(1), 13(11) and 15(1), the legislative purpose of those provisions is to ensure that employees of the APS at all times behave in a way that upholds the APS Values and the integrity and good reputation of the APS. [Extracted from the article]

It is worth recalling that the Explanations to Article 24 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights refer to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child signed on 20 November 1989 and ratified by all EU Member States. 279 C. J. E. C. 1 EUROPEAN UNION Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber) Sindicatul Familia Constanta and Others v. Directia Generala de Asistenta Sociala si Protectia Copilului Constanta, Decision of 20 November 2018, Case C-147/17 Protection of the safety and health of workers - organisation of working time - Articles 24 and 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 1(3) of Directive 2003/88/EC - scope and derogation - Article 2(2) of Directive 89/391/EEC - work performed by foster parents HEADNOTES Facts This judgement relates to the interpretation of Article 2 of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (the Framework Directive on Health and Safety), and of Articles 1(3), 2(1), 5, 7 and 17 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (Working Time Directive). 75 Although it is possible, pursuant to Article 17 of Directive 2003/88, to derogate, under certain conditions, from Article 5 of that Directive on weekly rest periods, and from Article 6 of that Directive on maximum weekly working time, the same does not apply to the right to annual leave, as set out in Article 7 of that Directive. The CJEU then goes on to assess whether these workers fall outside the scope of the Working Time Directive, on the ground that they fall within the specific exception found in Article 2(2) of the Framework Directive C. J. E. C. 1 291 on Health and Safety (referred to in Article 1(3) of the Working Time Directive). [Extracted from the article]

These are contracts which provide no guaranteed hours of work, but which require an employee to remain available to accept work; secondly, section 67E only permits employees to refuse to perform work in addition to any guaranteed hours specified in an employment agreement. As neither clause O20 nor any other provision of the collective agreement provides for the payment of reasonable compensation for such availability, it follows that clause O20 is unenforceable and that a delivery agent may refuse to work overtime on rostered days. (1) In this section and section 67E, an availability provision means a provision in an employment agreement under which: (a) the employee's performance of work is conditional on the employer making work available to the employee; and (b) the employee is required to be available to accept any work that the employer makes available. That means that a delivery agent is not entitled to refuse to work reasonable overtime under cl O20; and thirdly, even if cl O20 is an availability provision, no issue arises because delivery agents are remunerated by way of salary, which incorporates reasonable compensation for availability. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court stated that in accordance with Article 78(1) of the Labour Code, remuneration for work should be determined in such a way as to correspond, in particular, to the type of work performed and the qualifications required for it, as well as take into account the quantity and quality of work performed. This also applies to releasing the employee from the obligation to perform work during the notice period, for which the employee is entitled to the same (full) remuneration as for work during the notice period or annual leave pay. The amount of remuneration for work should correspond in particular to the nature of work and professional qualifications necessary to perform that work, as well as to the workload and quality of work. 259 Pol. 2 POLAND Supreme Court Judgement of 6 August 2019, II PK 122/18 Tips as a component of remuneration HEADNOTES Facts The plaintiff was employed by the defendant since 1992 as a casino dealer and subsequently as a casino dealer inspector. [Extracted from the article]

" Wage regulations for the appellant included the following: "The job allowance is paid in lieu of overtime payment on the basis that overtime work is deemed to be done during the wage payment period. Monthly wage payment descriptions given to the appellee by the appellant had a column for the description of overtime working hours and wage rates, but entries were virtually never made. The payment of premium wages through the payment of basic salary and some allowance which includes overtime work payment is not against the Article (Supreme Court, Decision of 7 July 2017 Saibanshu-minji 256-31). [Extracted from the article]

PART FOUR INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP 243 It. 1 ITALY Court of Cassation Decision No. 1663 of 21 January 2020 Hetero-organised work - digital platform work - regulation HEADNOTES Facts A number of workers who made home food deliveries on behalf of Digital Services XXXVI Italy srl (Foodora) on the basis of coordinated and continuous collaboration contracts petitioned the Court of Turin asking it to declare that they were in an employment relationship. Although the Appeal Court of Turin did not hold that the workers were employees, it did find that Article 2 of Legislative Decree No. 81 of 2015 was applicable to their contracts. Under Italian law, for there to be an employment relationship (under art. 2094 of the Italian Civil Code), the counterpart must unilaterally be able to direct the worker, as well as exercise, if it thinks fit, the related powers of discipline and supervision. (omissis) ANNOTATION The decision commented on here is the first one by the Court of Cassation regarding the regulation of workers who provide home food delivery services through digital platforms (also known as riders). [Extracted from the article]

There is simply no escaping the role intent plays here: Just as sex is necessarily a but-for cause when an employer discriminates against homosexual or transgender employees, an employer who discriminates on these grounds inescapably intends to rely on sex in its decision making. Put differently, the employer intentionally singles out an employee to fire based in part on the employee's sex, and the affected employee's sex is a but-for cause of his discharge. For an employer to discriminate against employees for being homosexual or transgender, the employer must intentionally discriminate against individual men and 224 ILLR 39 women in part because of sex. If the employer intentionally relies in part on an individual employee's sex when deciding to discharge the employee - put differently, if changing the employee's sex would have yielded a different choice by the employer - a statutory violation has occurred. [Extracted from the article]

On May 18, 2016, Parker was called to a meeting with Moppins, the Human Resources Manager, and RCSI's in-house counsel, and at that meeting, Moppins simultaneously issued Parker two written warnings and then fired her. One warning was based on Jennings' complaint against Parker, and the other asserted that Parker had poor management ability and was insubordinate to Moppins. The following day, Parker arranged a meeting with Moppins to discuss the rumor, and at that meeting Moppins blamed Parker for "bringing the situation to the workplace." At an all-staff meeting at which the rumor was discussed, the warehouse manager slammed the door in Parker's face, and at another meeting, he screamed at Parker as he lost his temper while blaming Parker for the rumor. [Extracted from the article]

The public entity appealed that decision before the High Court of Justice of the Valencian Community, with the petition that the High Court declare that the Employment Tribunal decision had been wrong and there was no discrimination. 191 Sp. 2 SPAIN Constitutional Court (Second Chamber) Decision No. 108/2019 of 30 September 2019 Sex discrimination in access to employment by not granting a job to the candidate who has obtained the best score in the selection process, due to her maternity HEADNOTES Facts A candidate for a temporary job in a public entity (National Statistics Institute, INE) obtained first place in the selection tests. En todo caso, en la línea que desarrolla con detalle la STC 162/2016, de 3 de octubre, FJ 7, y aceptando a efectos puramente dialécticos la aproximación fundada en el test but for o de la sustitución, utilizado por el Tribunal de Justicia y el Tribunal Supremo, que consiste en cambiar el sexo u otra circunstancia personal del sujeto para contrastar si las consecuencias jurídicas habrían sido las mismas en ese caso, la conclusión no varía. In this direction, the Court recalls its Decision 214/2006 of 3 July, in which it declared the violation of the right to non-discrimination in relation to decisions regarding hiring, "even without a current employment relationship". [Extracted from the article]

183 It. 3 ITALY Court of Cassation Decision No. 28926 of 12 November 2018 Dismissal - cause being marriage - male worker - applicability of equal opportunities law - EU law HEADNOTES Facts An employee was dismissed just under a year after his wedding. Decision The Court of Cassation rejected the appeal, ruling that the provisions of Article 35 of Legislative Decree No. 198 of 2006 only applies to women workers. Both the court of first instance and the Court of Appeal found that the dismissal was fair, affirming that Article 35 of Legislative Decree No. 198 of 2006 applies only to female workers, but not to male workers. [Extracted from the article]

[The Court cited U.S. Supreme Court judgment Brown v. The Board of Education and the "Edna Hazin" judgment of the National Labour Court.] 173 Isr. 1 ISRAEL Regional Labour Court (8822-02-18), National Labour Court (36077-04-18), Supreme Court (3515/18) The Israel Women's Network v. State of Israel-Civil Service Commission Equal opportunities - gender equality - separate education courses for men and for women in government training - religious v. equality considerations - interim orders in discrimination cases HEADNOTES Facts The Israel Women's Network (IDN) is a non-profit organisation dedicated to advance women's rights in Israel. Regional Labour Courts are the trial courts of the Labour Courts system and have jurisdiction, among other workplace issues, over disputes concerning equal opportunity at work. [The Court cited the facts and Isr. 1 175 then summarized Israel's laws and precedents regarding equality at the workplace. [Extracted from the article]

153 Ire. 1 IRELAND The Supreme Court Nano Nagle School v. Marie Daly Employment - disability discrimination - reasonable accommodation - duties of an employer HEADNOTES Facts The claimant was one of 27 Special Needs Assistants (SNA) employed by the respondent school which caters for children on the autistic spectrum and those with mild to profound disabilities. (b) An employer shall take appropriate measures, where needed in a particular case, to enable a person who has a disability: (i) to have access to employment, (ii) to participate or advance in employment, or (iii) to undergo training, unless the measures would impose a disproportionate burden on the employer […]". Under s.8(4)(b), an employer is prohibited from having rules or instructions which would result in discrimination against an employee, or class of employees, including in relation to access to, or conditions of, employment, or in the classification of posts. It provides, in relevant part, that an employer shall not discriminate against an employee in relation to access to employment, conditions of employment, access to employment, or classification of posts. [Extracted from the article]

It remains, however, that the court secretary or probationary judge will be in a precarious situation for many years and - wishing to please superior judges who evaluate his or her performance - may behave in a different manner from a judge who has permanent tenure (this could be called a "pre-emptive obedience"). As none of the judges appointed after December 2015 and employed by the defendant belonged to the plaintiffs' age group, it could be stated that the defendant had indirectly discriminated against the plaintiffs on grounds of their age. On the other hand, the president of the high court concerned took account of the entire length of service as a court secretary of another judicial employee, born in 1984 and appointed on 1 December 2015, towards his period of service as a judge. [Extracted from the article]

Whereas it can only be speculated what the outcome of F.A. v. France might have been if brought to the European Court of Human Rights, the complainant's success before the Human Rights Committee illustrates the benefit of multiple layers of international protection of human rights and underlines the importance of universal human rights bodies. Decision The Human Rights Committee held that the information before it disclosed a violation by France of Articles 18 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ratified by France in 1980. 133 H. R. 1 UNITED NATIONS Human Rights Committee F.A. v. France (Communication No. 2662/2015) Articles 18 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights - freedom to manifest one's religion by wearing headscarf - workplace discrimination on the grounds of religion and gender HEADNOTES Facts The complainant/author, F.A., is an educator of Moroccan nationality who had worked since 1991 in a childcare centre set up by a private association in France. As the case law of both European Courts stands at this stage, European policy makers, judges and legislators may not be inclined to embrace decisively the Human Rights Committee's decision in F.A. v. France. [Extracted from the article]

2 AGG ist ungeachtet des- hier nicht einschlägigen- § 8 AGG eine unterschiedliche Behandlung wegen der Religion oder der Weltanschauung bei der Beschäftigung durch Religionsgemeinschaften, die ihnen zugeordneten Einrichtungen ohne Rücksicht auf ihre Rechtsform oder durch Vereinigungen, die sich die gemeinschaftliche Pflege einer Religion oder Weltanschauung zur Aufgabe machen, auch zulässig, wenn eine bestimmte Religion oder Weltanschauung unter Beachtung des Selbstverständnisses der jeweiligen Religionsgemeinschaft oder Vereinigung nach der Art der Tätigkeit eine gerechtfertigte berufliche Anforderung darstellt. cc) § 9 Abs. 1 AGG und der inneren Systematik der Bestimmung wiederspiegelt, nicht dahin ausgelegt bzw. fortgebildet werden, dass es sich bei der beruflichen Anforderung um eine nach der Art der Tätigkeit oder der Umstände ihrer Ausübung gerechtfertigte Anforderung handeln muss. 1 AGG in der Fassung des Beschlusses des Ausschusses für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend […], wonach eine unterschiedliche Behandlung auch zulässig war, wenn eine bestimmte Religion oder Weltanschauung unter Beachtung des Selbstverständnisses der jeweiligen Religionsgemeinschaft oder Vereinigung nach der Art der Tätigkeit eine gerechtfertigte berufliche Anforderung darstellt […], wird das kirchliche Selbstbestimmungsrecht im Wortlaut der Bestimmung nicht ausdrücklich erwähnt. April 2018 […] erstens festgestellt, dass die Verwendung des Adjektivs "wesentlich" bedeutet, dass nach dem Willen des Unionsgesetzgebers die Zugehörigkeit zu der Religion bzw. das Bekenntnis zu der Weltanschauung, auf der das Ethos der betreffenden Kirche oder Organisation beruht, aufgrund der Bedeutung der betreffenden beruflichen Tätigkeit für die Bekundung dieses Ethos oder die Ausübung des Rechts dieser Kirche oder Organisation auf Autonomie notwendig erscheinen muss. [Extracted from the article]

Employees can achieve this more extensive client contact in one of two ways: by virtue of selling to a greater number of customers or by selling more products to a smaller number of customers. Thus, unlike the SRA, which only prohibits solicitation of those ADP clients with whom the former employees "w[ere] involved or exposed", the RCA also prohibits solicitation of all current and prospective ADP clients. 87 U. S. A. 5 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ADP, LLC v. Rafferty Contractual one year prohibition against former employee soliciting current and prospective clients HEADNOTES Facts As a condition of employment, sales personnel were required to sign an agreement to not compete or solicit the employer's clients for a year after their employment terminated. And by setting sales goals for its employees and identifying the subset of employees that meet or exceed those goals, ADP has the ability to empirically measure which of its employees have more extensive client contact. [Extracted from the article]

It must be considered an informative clause for the employee, one in which he or she expresses a consent that is not strictly necessary if he or she wants to perform the services for which the employment contract itself is entered into in the first place. In that case, the employee may suffer the contractual effects of that decision (for instance, a fair dismissal if the employee is not willing to properly carry out the work that is specified within the scope of the contract). One must differentiate between those activities that although not frequent are within the object of the employment contract and other activities that are completely exceptional and usually out of the scope of the employment contract (for instance, employees whose images are shown in an advertising campaign). [Extracted from the article]

In 2017, several trade unions filed a lawsuit against the company challenging the validity of this clause and the consent given by the employee. 73 Sp. 3 SPAIN Supreme Court Social Chamber Decision No. 304/2019 of 10 April 2019 Employee consent for use of personal data - right of personal portrayal - telemarketing activities using video HEADNOTES Facts A large company that provides contact center services and other business process solutions had been in the practice of inserting a standard clause in all employment contracts whereby the employee consents the use of his or her image through webcam or similar devices in order to carry out telemarketing. In the cases where the consent of the data subject is not required for processing personal data, and unless provided otherwise by law, the data subject may object to such processing when there are compelling and legitimate grounds relating to a particular personal situation. [Extracted from the article]

If an employer has informed an employee of possible monitoring, the employer may request that an employee provide received and/or sent emails in printed form. Therefore employer control power on email correspondence with non-employees is restricted, even if the email account is provided strictly for work purposes and preliminary information on monitoring was given to the employee. The term "any other data carrier", laid down in the employer's internal regulations cannot include a privately-owned device used with the employer's authorisation, since such device is provided not by the employer but by the employee. In addition, employers should notify all employees in writing of a company's internal regulations regarding employee Internet usage. [Extracted from the article]

The employer monitored the employee and his behaviour continuously and comprehensively during working hours; furthermore, the received data about the employee was not necessary for completing and reviewing the employee's work. Aust. 2 59 The employee claimed damages from the employer in accordance with section 1328a of the General Civil Code; the protected legal interest is the employee's privacy. This GPS, which the defendant had installed in every company car of the sales department, was able to transmit GPS data constantly, enabling the employer to locate all vehicles all the time, even during the employees' leisure time. The relevant provisions of labour law would only entitle the employee or the employee representatives (such as the works council) to remove the employer's control measures or to sue for injunction. [Extracted from the article]

An employee A who took part in the industrial action had, during two days, refused to perform such work that had been designated to him by the employer, but he had informed the employer that he was available for his ordinary work consisting of sorting and distributing mail in the post office. The employer may deduct from the pay due to employees under subsections 1 and 2 amounts that the latter have saved because their work performance has been impeded and amounts the employees have earned doing other work or chosen intentionally not to earn. The employer had not used the opportunities to exploit the employee fully in sorting and distributing post and thereby had treated employee A unfavourably due to his trade union activities without any justifiable reason for this behaviour. [Extracted from the article]

The EPF Act provides for provident funds, pension schemes and insurance funds in factories and establishments employing 20 or more employees and certain other establishments. 33 Ind. 1 INDIA Supreme Court of India The Officer In Charge, SubRegional Provident Fund Office & Anr v. M/s Godavari Garments Limited delivered on 24 July 2019 Whether women workers who were home workers and provided with materials to be made into garments at their own homes using their personal sewing machines could be treated as workers of the respondent company HEADNOTES Facts The Respondent Company (referred to here as the Company) was a subsidiary of the Marathwada Development Corporation, an undertaking of the Government of the State of Maharashtra in India. The balance sheet of the Company for the year 1988-1989 revealed large debits towards salary and wages for direct and indirect workers, but the Company made a statement that it had only 41 employees. Before the Provident Fund Officer the representative of the Company contended that the women workers who were fabricating garments for the Company were not their employees, and hence not covered by section 2(f) of the EPF Act. [Extracted from the article]

The article discusses the U.S. court case which explores if an employer credit payments voluntarily made for meal periods against pay owed for time spent in donning and removing protective gear and uniforms and in briefings at shift changes under the law. It notes that an employer may not use paid non-work time to offset unpaid work time except in circumstances described by the federal minimum wage and overtime statute. The case has been based on the Fair Labor Standards Act.