BCLP At Work

BCLP At Work

Layoffs

Main Content

Coronavirus (UK): Managing the rise of DSARs and redundancies during the Coronavirus pandemic

Introduction

During the Coronavirus pandemic, there has been a rise in the number of both redundancies and data subject access requests (“DSARs”). This rise has placed increased pressure on HR teams and Data Protection Officers (“DPOs’”), who are having to grapple with this burden alongside the other day to day challenges posed by the pandemic. This article provides a snapshot of the recent trends and some practical tips from our employment team for dealing with them effectively and/or minimising legal risk.

Redundancies

The Office for National Statistics (“ONS”) recently reported that there were 726,000 fewer people in payrolled employment in January 2021 compared to February 2020. More broadly, it has noted that the UK unemployment rate in the last quarter of 2020 was 1.3% higher than in the same period of 2019. In light of such figures, the ONS has commented that “the increase in UK redundancy rates during the Coronavirus pandemic is faster than during the 2008-2009 economic downturn”.

The Chancellor Rishi Sunak stated in his March 2021 Budget that, whilst Government interventions to support jobs have worked, and the Office for Budget Responsibility’s expected peak unemployment rate has lowered from 11.9% to 6.5%, job loss is very much

You’ve Been Warned: California’s WARN Act Is Broader Than the Federal Warn Act

As with so many other situations involving California’s employment laws, its protection for California-based employees experiencing a job loss is broader than the protections under federal law.  In The International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Local 998, et al. v. Nassco Holdings Inc., et al., the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate Division held, among other things, that California’s version of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (“WARN”) Act is broader than its federal counterpart.

The specific issue the court addressed was whether a furlough of several weeks constituted a “layoff” for purposes of a “mass layoff,” triggering the 60-day notice period when 50 or more employees at a covered establishment experience a “layoff” during any 30-day period.  The defendant argued unsuccessfully that no notice was required because its work stoppage was only for a brief period and therefore its action was not a “layoff” or “mass layoff.”  By contrast, the plaintiffs argued that notice was required because the statutory phrase “mass layoff” has no temporal limitation and includes the type of temporary layoffs that occurred, i.e., no termination, only a temporary separation from the position for lack of funds or lack of work.

In siding

Mass Dismissal Filings in Germany – Do Leased Employees (“Leiharbeitnehmer”) Count?

November 29, 2017

Categories

Collective redundancies and the complex issue of relevant dismissal thresholds for notification of the German Federal Employment Agency (“Bundesanstalt für Arbeit” or “the Agency”) were already addressed in an earlier June post this year.

On November 16, 2017, the Federal Labor Court of Germany (“BAG” or “the Court”) submitted a case (BAG – 2 AZR 90/17) to the European Court of Justice(“ECJ”) which dealt with so-called leased employees. The question was whether, and under what requirements, leased employees or temporary workers need to be taken into account when applying the thresholds for mass dismissal filings in accordance with Sec. 17 I (1) Nr. 2 Kündigungsschutzgesetz/ KSchG (the German Act against Unfair Dismissal). Because this German Sec. 17 KSchG is based on the European Council Directive 98/95/EC, the Court had no choice but to submit this question to the ECJ. Until the ECJ has ruled – which may easily take up to two years – this important question will remain unanswered with serious and immediate practical consequences.

Ironically, in the specific case pending before the Court, the employer took the position that a number of leased employees, who were temporarily assigned to their companies, should be accounted for under the

Mass Dismissal Filings in Germany – Be Aware

June 8, 2017

Categories

Successful restructuring measures in Germany, the more so if they result in RIF (reduction in force) proceedings, require very careful preparation, close observation of strict deadlines as well as very diligent processes with regard to works council information and consultation procedures.

In the event that the number of affected staff exceeds the collective dismissal filing requirements, extra care is essential in particular for larger entities and globally operating employers: any formal mistakes by them will result in the terminations being null and void. To make things worse, by the end of last year the German Federal Employment Agency (Bundesagentur für Arbeit/ the Agency) introduced new forms and spreadsheets for German employers to fill in and file with the Agency prior to implementing any terminations in the course of mass dismissal.

The relevant dismissal/ termination thresholds for notification of the Agency in the event of mass dismissals – within 30 calendar days – are:

Number of staff                                Planned Layoffs

21-59                                                   more than 5 employees

60-499                                            

The attorneys of Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner make this site available to you only for the educational purposes of imparting general information and a general understanding of the law. This site does not offer specific legal advice. Your use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Bryan Cave LLP or any of its attorneys. Do not use this site as a substitute for specific legal advice from a licensed attorney. Much of the information on this site is based upon preliminary discussions in the absence of definitive advice or policy statements and therefore may change as soon as more definitive advice is available. Please review our full disclaimer.