2011/46 Numerous fixed-term contracts: difference between ‘continuous’ and ‘successive’ employment (IR)

Under the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003, the Labour Court was required to determine whether a former employee of the Irish Civil Service (Mr Beary), who had numerous fixed-term contracts between 2002 and 2008, was entitled to a permanent contract of employment.  

The Court also addressed an issue which arose as to whether Ireland had complied with its obligations in implementing Clause 5 of the Framework Agreement annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC. The issue arose because the objective of Clause 5 is to combat the abuse of ‘successive’ fixed-term contracts, whereas the 2003 Act is directed at preventing the unlimited use of ‘continuous’ fixed-term contracts. 

The Labour Court determined that there was incompatibility between the Framework Agreement and the 2003 Act because although “all periods of employment which are continuous are necessarily successive, not all employment which is successive is necessarily continuous”. The Court concluded that while the former employee had become entitled to a permanent contract, there were objective grounds for not giving the contract.

2011/46 Numerous fixed-term contracts: difference between ‘continuous’ and ‘successive’ employment (IR)

Under the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003, the Labour Court was required to determine whether a former employee of the Irish Civil Service (Mr Beary), who had numerous fixed-term contracts between 2002 and 2008, was entitled to a permanent contract of employment.  

The Court also addressed an issue which arose as to whether Ireland had complied with its obligations in implementing Clause 5 of the Framework Agreement annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC. The issue arose because the objective of Clause 5 is to combat the abuse of ‘successive’ fixed-term contracts, whereas the 2003 Act is directed at preventing the unlimited use of ‘continuous’ fixed-term contracts. 

The Labour Court determined that there was incompatibility between the Framework Agreement and the 2003 Act because although “all periods of employment which are continuous are necessarily successive, not all employment which is successive is necessarily continuous”. The Court concluded that while the former employee had become entitled to a permanent contract, there were objective grounds for not giving the contract.

2011/31 Dismissal, not (discovery of) pregnancy, triggers dismissal protection time-bar (LU)

It was not until after being dismissed that the employee discovered that she was pregnant and had already been pregnant for a while at the time of her dismissal. Luxembourg law has such short time limits for nullifying a dismissal in these circumstances that the employee effectively had no dismissal protection. Nevertheless, the court held her to the statutory time limits and ruled against her.

2011/31 Dismissal, not (discovery of) pregnancy, triggers dismissal protection time-bar (LU)

It was not until after being dismissed that the employee discovered that she was pregnant and had already been pregnant for a while at the time of her dismissal. Luxembourg law has such short time limits for nullifying a dismissal in these circumstances that the employee effectively had no dismissal protection. Nevertheless, the court held her to the statutory time limits and ruled against her.

ECJ 20 January 2011, case C-463/09 (CLECE SA – v – María Socorro Martín Valor and Ayuntamiento de Cobisa), Transfer

“CLECE” is a cleaning company that had contracted with the municipality of Cobisa to...

ECJ 20 January 2011, case C-463/09 (CLECE SA – v – María Socorro Martín Valor and Ayuntamiento de Cobisa), Transfer

“CLECE” is a cleaning company that had contracted with the municipality of Cobisa to...

ECJ 18 January 2011, case C-272/10 (Souzana Berziki-Nikolakaki – v – ASEP and Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis), Fixed-term work

Ms Berziki was employed as a full-time microbiologist by the University of Thessaloniki on the...

ECJ 18 January 2011, case C-272/10 (Souzana Berziki-Nikolakaki – v – ASEP and Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis), Fixed-term work

Ms Berziki was employed as a full-time microbiologist by the University of Thessaloniki on the...

2011/44 Dismissal for Using Social Media at Work - Is It Fair? (UK)

The Employment Tribunal dismissed an employee’s claim for unfair dismissal where the employee had made negative comments on Facebook about a customer who subsequently complained to the employer. Whilst the employee had a right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, her employer’s action was justified because of the risk of damage to their reputation. The dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses available to a reasonable employer.

2011/44 Dismissal for Using Social Media at Work - Is It Fair? (UK)

The Employment Tribunal dismissed an employee’s claim for unfair dismissal where the employee had made negative comments on Facebook about a customer who subsequently complained to the employer. Whilst the employee had a right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, her employer’s action was justified because of the risk of damage to their reputation. The dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses available to a reasonable employer.