2018/4 Racist “liking” on Facebook may justify dismissal for serious misconduct (BE)

Racist ‘liking’ on Facebook may justify dismissal for serious misconduct, says the Labour Court of Liège in a decision of 24 March 2017. This case is interesting because, to the author’s knowledge, it is the first time that a simple ‘like’ (as opposed to a proper comment) on Facebook is assessed by a Belgian judge with a view to validate a dismissal for serious misconduct. This case also raises serious questions about the limits to the freedom of expression in social media.

2018/5 Evidence from long-term keylogger surveillance cannot be used in a dismissal lawsuit (GE)

The German federal court for labour law matters, the Bundesarbeitsgericht (the ‘BAG’), has held that evidence cannot be used in a dismissal lawsuit if the employer has obtained it from long-term surveillance using keylogger-software. Employers must not keep their employees under constant surveillance and must therefore expect their legal position to be weak if they try to dismiss an employee based on findings from such monitoring. The court ruling preceded the ECtHR Barbulescu ruling of 5 September 2017 (featured in EELC 2017/4) in a similar case.

ECJ 20 December 2017, case C-103/16 (Porras Guisado), Unfair dismissal, Collective redundancies

Directive 92/85 does not preclude national legislation that allows an employer to dismiss a pregnant worker in the context of a collective redundancy.

ECtHR 27 February 2018, application no. 1085/10, Unfair dismissal, Freedom of expression

Dismissal after re-instatement of employment following an ECtHR judgment found an infringement of freedom of speech.

Guja – v – The Republic of Moldova (No. 2), Moldavian case

ECtHR 27 February 2018, application no. 1085/10, Unfair dismissal, Freedom of expression

Dismissal after re-instatement of employment following an ECtHR judgment found an infringement of freedom of speech.

Guja – v – The Republic of Moldova (No. 2), Moldavian case

ECJ 20 December 2017, case C-103/16 (Porras Guisado), Unfair dismissal, Collective redundancies

Directive 92/85 does not preclude national legislation that allows an employer to dismiss a pregnant worker in the context of a collective redundancy.

ECtHR 23 January 2018, application no. 60392/08, Unfair dismissal, Other fundamental rights

The Turkish Supreme Administrative Court cast doubt on a dismissed police officer’s innocence by failing, in an appeal review, to take proper account of the fact that he had been acquitted of rape, in breach of the presumption of innocence contained in Article 6 §2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Seven – v – Turkey, Turkish case

ECtHR 23 January 2018, application no. 60392/08, Unfair dismissal, Other fundamental rights

The Turkish Supreme Administrative Court cast doubt on a dismissed police officer’s innocence by failing, in an appeal review, to take proper account of the fact that he had been acquitted of rape, in breach of the presumption of innocence contained in Article 6 §2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Seven – v – Turkey, Turkish case

2017/32 An employer cannot request the invalidation of an employee’s employment contract termination notice in court: any other interpretation would be contrary to the prohibition of forced labour (LA)

Under the Latvian Labour Law an employee has the right to terminate an employment contract with immediate effect, i.e. without complying with the statutory notice period of one month, if the employee has ‘good cause’. Under the Labour Law, ‘good cause’ is any situation, which, based on considerations of morality and fairness, would not allow for the employment to continue. If an employee terminates their employment contract for good cause the employer must pay severance to the employee based on the employee’s years of service with the employer and amounting to between one and four months’ average earnings. If the employee gives notice for good cause, this terminates the employment contract with immediate effect.Even if the employer disagrees with the reasons given in the termination notice, the employer cannot terminate the employment contract on any other ground and does not have the right to challenge the validity of the notice in court. However, if the employer suffers loss as a result of the immediate termination; its reputation is damaged based on the reasons given in the notice; or it has faced some other adverse consequence; the employer can bring a claim arguing that what is stated in the notice is untrue.

2017/32 An employer cannot request the invalidation of an employee’s employment contract termination notice in court: any other interpretation would be contrary to the prohibition of forced labour (LA)

Under the Latvian Labour Law an employee has the right to terminate an employment contract with immediate effect, i.e. without complying with the statutory notice period of one month, if the employee has ‘good cause’. Under the Labour Law, ‘good cause’ is any situation, which, based on considerations of morality and fairness, would not allow for the employment to continue. If an employee terminates their employment contract for good cause the employer must pay severance to the employee based on the employee’s years of service with the employer and amounting to between one and four months’ average earnings. If the employee gives notice for good cause, this terminates the employment contract with immediate effect.Even if the employer disagrees with the reasons given in the termination notice, the employer cannot terminate the employment contract on any other ground and does not have the right to challenge the validity of the notice in court. However, if the employer suffers loss as a result of the immediate termination; its reputation is damaged based on the reasons given in the notice; or it has faced some other adverse consequence; the employer can bring a claim arguing that what is stated in the notice is untrue.