Belgium’s Private Investigations Act: Is Your Internal Investigations Service in Focus?

By Marga Caproni on May 14, 2025 Posted in Investigation, Workplace Investigations

In December 2024, the new Private Investigations Act came into force. The Act replaced the Private Detectives Act of 1991 and was long overdue, considering how much has changed in the world of private investigations. The 1991 law focused on detectives as sole practitioners, think Columbo or Magnum P.I., a world of uncertain ethics, periodic violence and grubby raincoats, most of which no longer exists outside the small screen. The new Act aims to modernise the applicable legal framework in light of new investigation methods and bring it into line with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), though sadly not to address the traditional private detective issues of implausible dialogue and unhappy dress choices.

The Act imposes a number of obligations on employers instructing investigations on their employees, and we will discuss these changes at length in future blogs, but there is a more pressing issue we need to deal with first, and that regards your internal investigations service. The Act extends its scope from solo private detectives to all types of investigations companies but more importantly, also to internal investigations services. An internal investigations service is defined by the Act as ‘any service organised by a natural or legal person for its own purposes for the systematic performance of private investigation activities’. This definition is very wide and has prompted the legislator to exclude a number of roles and functions, such as lawyers, bailiffs and auditors.

Handling Workplace Investigations Webinar – Follow-up Questions Answered, Part 1 (UK)

By Fiona Sellers on May 13, 2025 Posted in Investigation, Workplace Investigations

During our recent webinar on Handling Workplace Investigations, we received several questions via the chat facility that we will address in a number of blogs over the next few weeks.

First off, we have some questions about who should carry out a workplace investigation.

If your policy states that a different manager will do the investigation versus the disciplinary/grievance hearing, should you follow that?

As a general rule, yes.

The first thing to say is that you should always seek to comply with your own policies and procedures unless there is a good reason for not doing so. Although a failure to comply will not in itself automatically render any subsequent decision unfair, a Tribunal will take such matters into consideration when considering the fairness of the overall process. If the policy is contractual (which we would generally advise against), a failure to comply could also give an employee grounds to claim breach of contract.

Leaving aside your policy, the Acas Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures makes it clear that when it comes to misconduct cases, where practicable, different people should carry out the investigation and disciplinary hearing. This is to help ensure the process is objective and reduce the scope for allegations of bias and impartiality through the perception of being both prosecution and judge. Acas’s separate Guidance on Conducting Workplace Investigations also recommends that a different person should handle each stage of the process.

UK Business Immigration – The Immigration White Paper is here

By Annabel Mace, May Cheung and Carine Elliott on May 12, 2025 Posted in Business Immigration

The government’s long awaited White Paper Restoring Control over the Immigration System has been published today. As part of the Home Secretary’s foreword in the Paper, she states that the plan will “restore order, control and fairness to the system, bring down net migration and promote economic growth”. The proposals signal a marked tightening of the UK’s approach to both legal and illegal migration, or so it says, as the Paper lacks much of the detail which would be required to substantiate that.

It is not yet clear how or when these new measures will be introduced (they are described as ‘plans’ throughout the Paper). As ever, the devil will be in the detail but we have summarised the key points likely to affect UK businesses, with our commentary below:

Germany: Bureaucracy out, Digital in? The new Government’s plans for labour and employment

By Tanja Weber, Lutz Hoheisel, Dagmar Nolden, Laura Sparschuh and Anna-Maria Hesse on May 12, 2025 Posted in Contract of Employment, Minimum Wage, Tax, Working Time

After long negotiations between the Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats, the parties agreed to establish a coalition to form the new government and Friedrich Merz was eventually elected on 6 May 2025 as new Chancelor of Germany. The coalition agreement published by the parties offers insight into their agenda. While not the primary focus of the agreement, there are several initiatives that aim to address certain labour and employment issues of relevance to the German market.

California Court of Appeal Affirms Enforceability of Prospective Meal Period Waivers (US)

By Gabrielle Martin on May 5, 2025 Posted in California, Compliance, Employment Law

In a ruling that clarifies a previously unsettled area of California employment law, a California Court of Appeal affirmed the enforceability of written, prospective meal period waivers for shifts between five and six hours long. The April 21, 2025 decision in Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating, Inc. explained that advanced “blanket” waivers are valid under the law if freely revocable and absent evidence of coercion or unconscionability. For California employers, Bradsbery provides much-needed guidance on how to properly implement meal period waivers in compliance with the law.

Eighth Circuit Holds Minnesota Human Rights Act Does Not Apply to Out-of-State, Remote Employee: What All Employers Need to Know (US)

By Gabrielle Martin on April 30, 2025 Posted in Employment Law, Remote Work

Although the meteoric rise in remote work prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic appears to have plateaued and may even be scaling back as employers press return-to-office policies, the reality is that many employees still work, and will continue to work, remotely. As employment law is largely legislated at the state level, the variation in how state laws apply to employers with employees working or reporting into offices in different states can present real challenges. In its April 9, 2025 decision in Kuklenski v. Medtronic USA, Inc., No. 24-1310 (8th Cir. 2025), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit addressed these issues when analyzing whether an employee who did not reside or work in Minnesota could nonetheless bring a claim under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (“MHRA”).

New Immigration Registration Rule for Foreign Nationals (US)

By Luisa Koidl on April 18, 2025 Posted in Immigration, Visa

Effective April 11, 2025, certain foreign nationals in the US must register online with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), while others are already registered based on their status. This requirement is based on a 1940 law that mandates every foreign national who is in the US for 30 days must be registered and fingerprinted and DHS issued an Interim Final Rule (IFR) to update the registration regulations, introducing a new online process for unregistered foreign nationals.

Update: US Supreme Court Stays Lower Courts’ Orders Reinstating NLRB and MSPB Members, Removing Them Once Again (US)

By Peter Clouse on April 17, 2025 Posted in Employment Law, MSPB, NLRB

For the first—but not last—time, the US Supreme Court weighed in on President Donald Trump’s removal of Gwynne Wilcox, a Biden-appointed National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) member (whose removal we discussed in a prior post), and Cathy Harris, a Biden-appointed Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) member. Chief Justice Roberts’ April 9 order temporarily stayed the D.C. Circuit’s en banc decision permitting Wilcox and Harris to resume their duties at their respective agencies, effectively re-removing them following their reinstatement by the D.C. Circuit. The most significant consequence of that action is that, once again, the NLRB lacks a quorum, and thus cannot decide cases.

Best Practices for Employers When Implementing a Reduction in Force (US)

By Melissa Legault on April 15, 2025 Posted in Compliance, Employment Law, Layoff, WARN Act

Laying off employees – also referred to as a reduction in force or a RIF – is one of the most difficult decisions an employer can make. Whether driven by economic conditions, organizational restructuring or pivots in business strategy, RIFs inherently create legal risks and significantly impact workplace morale. Although RIFs come with many challenges and pitfalls, employers who approach the process thoughtfully and strategically can mitigate legal risk while treating affected employees fairly and with respect. The following are some best practices for private employers to consider when implementing a reduction in force.

Dutch Government Issues Draft Pay Transparency Legislation

By Chelsea Gunning on April 15, 2025 Posted in General

EU member states have until 7 June 2026 to introduce local legislation implementing the Pay Transparency Directive. As per our recent blog, to date there have been very few developments on this front, but we are now starting to see the publication of draft legislation.

The Dutch government recently issued a Bill aimed at implementing the Directive (Wetsvoorstel implementatie richtlijn loontransparantie). The Bill does not include any provisions other than those that are strictly necessary to ensure compliance with the Directive – some good news for employers at least!