Employment Contracts

Subscribe to Employment Contracts

As of 1 August 2022, employers in Germany must provide employees with additional information on the terms and conditions of employment. In case of non-compliance, there is a risk of administrative fines of up to EUR 2,000 per violation.

In June 2022, the German government passed changes to the Notification Act that will enter into force on 1 August 2022 and will require action from employers in Germany. Background of the amendments to the already existing Notification Act is the implementation of the European Directive on Transparent and Predictable Working Conditions (EU 2019/1152) into national law.

Important Consequences for Employers

The changes mean that employees need to be provided with additional information on essential terms and conditions of employment. The German legislator decided to apply a written form requirement for this notification and thus decided against the possibility of digitalization. This means that the information on the essential conditions of employment must be wet signed by the employer.

Although the Notification Act is not new for employers, it has not been of great significance in practice to date, not only because of the lack of consequence so far, but also because of the comparatively low requirements that were typically met by standard employment contracts.Continue Reading Employers in Germany must take action following changes to the Notification Act

The practice of ‘fire and rehire’ (i.e. dismissal of an employee and offering re-engagement on new, usually lesser, terms) as a way to facilitate a change to terms and conditions of employment has been under the spotlight in recent years. It is not a new strategy as a way of making changes to employment contracts, nor is it unlawful if handled properly, but the tactic has been subject to increased scrutiny in recent years as cases of misuse by some employers have hit the headlines.

In autumn 2021, legislation curbing dismissal and re-engagement was shelved by the government and replaced with a commitment for updated and more detailed Acas guidance. That guidance (which is not binding) focusses on the importance of thorough and constructive consultation with staff to explore all alternative options to terminating employment, describing fire and rehire as ‘a last resort’.

Fast forward a few months, and the government has announced that we can now also expect a new Statutory Code of Practice on fire and rehire intended to crackdown on the inappropriate use of the tactic, with increased punitive financial sanctions for non-compliance.

As always, the devil will be in the detail. The new Code is expected to set out the consultation process to be followed where there are proposed changes to terms and conditions, and to give practical steps for employers to follow. It is also expected that an additional 25% penalty (on top of the existing punitive sanctions) will be levied where an employer deploys fire and rehire tactics without first having made reasonable efforts to reach agreement through consultation, or where there is otherwise unreasonable non-compliance with the Code.
Continue Reading Fire & rehire clampdown: will a new Statutory Code of Practice help?

In France, a health pass[1] must be presented in certain places or events where there is a high risk of COVID-19 being contracted (e.g. concert halls/cinemas, sports events, bars and restaurants, long-distance transport, shopping centres over 20,000 m², etc.) as listed by the Law no. 2021-1040 dated 5 August 2021.

Since 30 August 2021, employees working within these places are also required to present a health pass in order to continue their job role, unless this takes place in a space that is not accessible to the public or takes place outside of public opening hours.

If the employee does not have a health pass or refuses to present it, they will no longer be able to work. The employee may take rest days or paid leave in agreement with the employer. However, if an agreement is not met, the employer is required to suspend the employee’s employment contract without pay until the employee is able to present a health pass. The Law states that, after the third day of the suspension of the contract, the employer must conduct an interview with the employee during which they will discuss ways to rectify the situation. For example, this could include a temporary assignment to a position not subject to the above-mentioned obligations if the needs and organisation of the company allow it or teleworking if the employee is eligible. If they fail to come to an agreement, the Law states that “ordinary law procedures” concerning employment contracts may be applied. The text no longer states that the employee may be dismissed if they fail to present a health pass for an extended period.
Continue Reading Employees in France who fail to present a health pass risk having their employment contract suspended

In part I of this two part series reviewing the employment law class of 2017 we focused on developments in discrimination, anti-retaliation and discharge, hiring and background checks, and workplace health and safety. In part II we will focus on developments in wage and hour law, leave laws, industry-specific regulations, and California’s recent legislation affecting choice-of-law in employment contracts. Similar to the laws featured in part I, a majority of these laws amend previous employment legislation. This trend demonstrates that the 2016 legislative session focused more on expanding and addressing lingering questions that stem from existing workplace mandates, than creating new rights under California law. As the majority of the laws take effect on January 1, 2017, HR departments and employment counsel are off and running, to get employers prepared for a new year of implementation.
Continue Reading California’s Employment Law Class of 2017 (Part II): The Laws, Their Effects and Some Recommendations for Compliance

Dana E. Feinstein, Reed Smith Summer Associate, contributed to this blog post.  

Employers in New Jersey should be aware that a recent New Jersey Supreme Court decision invalidated a contractual provision that shortened the statute of limitations for bringing a claim for discrimination under the Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”). On June 15, 2016, the New Jersey Supreme Court overturned the lower court’s decision and held that employers cannot impose a contractual limit on the two-year time period allotted to an employee to file a claim of employment discrimination under LAD. See Rodriguez v. Raymours Furniture Co., 2016 N.J. LEXIS 566 (June 15, 2016).

Sergio Rodriguez, a non-native English speaker from Argentina, signed an employment application when applying for a job at Raymour & Flanigan Furniture Stores. The application stated in bold and capitalized letters that the undersigned agreed “that any claim or lawsuit relating to [his] service with Raymour & Flanigan must be filed no more than six (6) months after the date of the employment action that is the subject of the claim or lawsuit” and that he would waive any conflicting statute of limitations. This contractual six-month limit was far shorter than LAD’s two-year statute of limitations.Continue Reading Reminder to New Jersey Employers: Shortening the Law Against Discrimination’s Statute of Limitations is Prohibited

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, has announced plans to introduce a new type of employment contract – an ‘owner-employee’ employment contract. ‘Owner-employees’ will receive between £2,000 and £50,000 worth of shares (which will be exempt from capital gains tax) in exchange for giving up certain rights, including redundancy rights, the right to claim unfair dismissal and the right to request flexible working or time off for training.  Owner-employees will also be required to give 16 weeks’ notice of their return from maternity leave, rather than the current 8 weeks.Continue Reading Plans for new ‘owner-employee’ employment contracts announced