There is a law in Poland guaranteeing minimum pay for work. There are rules how its amount is calculated and agreed. There are also upcoming elections in October 2019 which may unexpectedly influence its amount.
In the lead-up to the close of the Government’s consultation on sexual harassment in the workplace we will be running a series of blogs on the issue, starting with a look at existing legislation, how it works and how it holds employers accountable for sexual harassment in the workplace.
This Autumn brings quite a few changes for Polish employers. Not only do new pension plans called PPK (Pracownicze Plany Kapitałowe) became a reality for the biggest Polish employers in the fourth quarter of 2019, but the Labour Code and Code of Civil Procedure see changes too. Some of them result in a need to change workplace policies and procedures, while others increase operational costs.
On August 9, 2019, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker signed into law the Illinois Workplace Transparency Act (“WTA”), imposing new requirements and modifying existing laws in ways that will impact nearly all Illinois employers – and may be a signal of things to come in other US states. The WTA aims to address concerns raised through the #MeToo movement regarding the frequency of sexual harassment occurrences and concealment of claims of such unlawful conduct. But the WTA also goes beyond concerns regarding sexual harassment and addresses prohibitions against other unlawful employment practices and concealment of such claims, and creates broad restrictions on confidentiality provisions that are commonly included in employment and separation agreements, amending the Illinois Human Rights Act to expand protected categories under the law and require disclosures about legal claims of unlawful employment practices, and limiting the use of arbitration agreements. Here is how the WTA breaks down: Continue Reading
This time concerning how holiday pay should be calculated for those who only work for part of the year, e.g. term-time workers, and arguably proof positive of the old legal maxim that “hard cases make bad law”.
In recent months we have been privileged to have sitting with us in our Labour & Employment team Anela Lucic, Employment attorney at leading Swiss commercial lawyers Vischer. After an eye-opening glimpse into English employment law and practice, here is Anela’s brief summary of the Swiss position.
If you’ve been following our blog, you already know that the topic of employer-mandated arbitration agreements has been a hot issue in recent years for government agencies and in the state and federal courts. Most notably, in May of last year, the United States Supreme Court issued its highly-anticipated decision in Epic Systems v. Lewis, in which it confirmed that employers may require employees to enter into mandatory arbitration agreements as a condition of employment without violating the National Labor Relations Act (“Act”). As you may recall, Epic Systems arose out of dispute in which the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) took the position that employer-mandated arbitration agreements requiring that employees waive the right to engage in class or collective litigation are unenforceable because Section 7 of the Act protects an employee’s right to engage in protected concerted activity, which the NLRB argued includes litigating employment-related disputes as class or collective actions. The Supreme Court rejected this position, finding that class and collective litigation are not substantive legal rights, but rather procedural creations of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), and as such, are not rights traditionally protected by the Act. Our more in-depth review of the Epic Systems decision is here. Continue Reading
Learning point 3: do not be afraid to manage workers who have raised whistleblowing concerns
The date is rapidly approaching when Colorado will join the growing list of states choosing to “ban the box” on criminal history inquiries by employers. Continue Reading
The EU Settlement Scheme designed to protect the rights of EU, EEA and Swiss citizens and their families already resident in the UK by 31 December 2020 is based on the citizens’ rights section of the UK government’s Withdrawal Agreement with the EU. However, the Withdrawal Agreement has been considered and rejected by the House of Commons on three occasions, the EU has consistently said it cannot be renegotiated and new Prime Minister Boris Johnson has promised that the UK will leave the EU on 31 October 2019 “no ifs, no buts”. So now what?