Today we cross to the Emerald Isle for a recent lesson on bullying and negligence issued by the Irish Court of Appeal. Though not binding on the UK Courts, it is hard to see that any very different principles could apply here.
Squire Patton Boggs presents a webinar to discuss current hot topics in French employment law and their impact on employers in France.
The election of Emmanuel Macron as President in May 2017 led to an ambitious transformation of France’s labour laws. Following the extensive reforms launched in September 2017, the French government continues to implement changes aimed at reducing France’s exceptionally high levels of unemployment and growing its international competitiveness.
On 17 October 2018 at 3.00 p.m. GMT (4.00 p.m. BST (UK), 5.00 p.m. CEST, 11.00 a.m. EDT, 8.00 a.m. PDT), Pauline Pierce and Delphine Monnier will focus on the key recent changes, including:
- Secondments in France: relaxation of the rules, stringent controls and sanctions
- Gender equality and sexual harassment in the workplace
- Profit-sharing: new opportunities for businesses
- Expanding unemployment benefits to employees who resign
They will also discuss significant 2018 case law developments.
The webinar will be a 50-minute presentation in English followed by a 10-minute online question and answer session.
Intended to help you manage labour and employment law risk across your international operations, the webinar will be of interest to both HR professionals and in-house counsel.
This webinar is part of our 2018 series focusing on the key labour and employment issues in countries throughout Europe, the Middle East, Asia Pacific and the US.
Rule Would Return To Direct and Immediate Control Test, But Adds New Requirement That Such Control Be “Substantial”
On September 14, 2018, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or the “Board”) published in the Federal Register a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“Notice”) proposing a new rule to be applied by the NLRB to determine whether an employer may be considered a joint employer of a separate employer’s employees. This development is the latest in the ongoing joint employer saga before the NLRB.
As explained in the NPR, “whether one business is the joint employer of another business’s employees is one of the most important issues in labor law today.” The Board notes that “there are myriad relationships between employers and their business partners,” and that “[a] determination by the Board regarding whether two separate businesses constitute a ‘joint employer’ as to a group of employees has significant consequences for the businesses, unions, and employees alike,” as when a joint-employer relationship is found to exist, the Board “may compel the joint employer to bargain in good faith with a Board-certified or voluntarily recognized bargaining representative of the jointly-employed workers,” the Board may find joint employers “jointly and severally liable for unfair labor practices committed by the other,” and a “finding of joint-employer status may determine whether picketing directed at a particular business is primary and lawful, or secondary and unlawful.” Continue Reading
If you try to mediate a workplace clash, then the hardest part is often to get the parties to focus on the future of that relationship, not the recent past leading to its breakdown. For so long as one or both find themselves unable to let go of that past, there will be obvious difficulties in establishing a new and untainted platform from which to move forward.
Clearly another quiet week over at Acas if its new guidance on employment references is anything to go by. It is, in all honesty, a bit on the basic side, even including an answer to that never-asked question – what is an employment reference?
When a public relations issue strikes, it can be difficult to find time to implement new procedures or educate employees on new legal concepts. This is particularly true where social media can trigger a public relations crisis almost instantaneously. Accordingly, an organization should develop a public relations response plan before it needs one. Continue Reading
On August 28, 2018, the Wage and Hour Division of the United States Department of Labor (“WHD”) issued four new opinion letters interpreting various aspects of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). In addition, the WHD has announced plans to analyze and consider changes to the FLSA’s white collar overtime exemption regulations applicable to executive, administrative, professional, and outside sales employees. To support this effort, the WHD has scheduled five public listening sessions in various locations across the country (a list of which you can find here), which it invites the public to attend and provide comment. The key questions to be addressed at these sessions surround the pros and cons of adjusting the salary basis – the salary level employees must meet in order to be deemed exempt under the white collar overtime exemptions. We will be sending representatives and encourage you to contact us with any questions or feedback you would like us to raise at these sessions.
Regarding the opinion letters, as you may recall from our prior blog posts (for example, here and here), the WHD resumed issuing opinion letters in mid-2017. Opinion letters are official written interpretations of the FLSA, as those laws apply in specific factual situations. Continue Reading
In a recent announcement, US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) advised the previous suspension of premium processing for cap-subject H-1B petitions will continue to February 19, 2019 and will be expanded to include additional H-1B petitions. The expansion will take effect on September 11, 2018. However, USCIS will continue premium processing of pending H-1B petitions if the petitioner properly filed an associated Form I-907 before September 11, 2018. Continue Reading
This week, U.S. Secretary of Labor Alexander Acosta announced that the Department of Labor (DOL), in collaboration with other federal employment agencies, was creating an Office of Compliance Initiatives (OCI). The DOL, through its various divisions, oversees compliance with and enforces the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, among other laws and regulations.
Forget the law for a moment and answer me this. If:
- despite having no reasonable grounds to hold that view, I genuinely believe that someone made a racist remark about me; and
- I sit on that belief without a murmur of complaint for four years; and
- when my work is entirely justifiably criticised, I then do complain about that remark with the express intention not of seeking any redress for it, but of deflecting that criticism, then
am I acting in bad faith? On the one hand, I do believe I am telling the truth even though objectively I am not. On the other, I am not raising my complaint to obtain a remedy but simply to avoid the consequences of genuine and reasonable criticisms of my own poor work. Continue Reading