BCLP At Work

Main Content

New developments on time restricted employment contracts – more “red tape” and further restrictions

The “Große Koalition” (the Grand Coalition) recently concluded a variety of legislative projects which will result in additional headaches, administrative hurdles, thresholds and new deadlines for HR professionals and employment experts. Traditionally, labor and employment laws in Germany have tended to be employee friendly. Now it appears that the few remaining employer-friendly laws enacted in the early 1980s to improve overall employment in Germany will also be reversed.

One area subject to challenge is time restricted employment. Until now, German employers could use time restricted employment even without substantive reasons for up to two years. This concept, known by the somewhat technical German term “sachgrundlose Befristung”, became extremely popular due to wide coverage which extended outside the legal press.

Federal Constitutional Court narrows use of time restricted employment contract

In June 2018, the Federal Constitutional Court in Germany (“Bundesverfassungsgericht”) overruled a 2011 judgment of the Federal Labor Court (“Bundesarbeitsgericht”). The

Advocate-General’s opinion may have significant implications for holiday law in Germany

June 1, 2018

Categories

Under German law, employees generally apply for holiday during the holiday year so that their claims can be fulfilled. If they fail to do so, their entitlement lapses at the end of the year. When employees leave their firms, they cannot claim compensation for unused holiday. A recent Advocate-General’s opinion has now thrown doubt on this practice.

This area has been under scrutiny, as several Regional Labour Courts have granted employee claims for compensation in the form of a substitute holiday (or compensation) specifically in cases where the employee has not applied for holiday during the year. Up to now, the question of whether the employee is also entitled to compensation after failing to submit the appropriate holiday request was unresolved because the German Federal Holiday Act does not contain a corresponding provision.

Two cases on this issue presented by the Federal Labour Court and by the Higher Administrative Court

Supreme Court Upholds Class Action Waivers

On May 21, the United States Supreme Court held that mandatory arbitration agreements containing class action waivers are to be enforced as written.  In Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, a trio of consolidated appeals, the Court rejected arguments by employees that section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) – which permits employees to engage in “concerted activity” for the purposes of “collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection” – grants employees a statutory right to assert legal claims (such as claims under federal and state wage and hour laws) on a class or collective basis.

This decision is significant for employers nationwide. Since 2012, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) has asserted that such waivers violate the NLRA, forcing employers to choose whether to (a) risk violation of the NLRA, (b) implement an opt-out procedure that some courts had concluded might comply with the NLRA, or (c)

GDPR HR Series: Subject Access Requests Under the New Regime – What You Need to Know

Welcome to the 2nd post in our ‘GDPR HR Issues’ blog series. Drawing on key insights from across Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner’s global Employment & Labor team, the series highlights key GDPR issues affecting employers.

With the General Data Protection Regulation (‘GDPR’) coming into effect today, employers with EU-based staff need to ensure that they properly comply with the new regime. Failure to do so can result in significant fines and disruption to your business.

This blog focuses on the changes made by GDPR to a fundamental data protection right – an employee’s right to find out what information their employer holds on them by making a data subject access request (‘DSAR’).

  • Complying with a DSAR can involve a lot of work and significant cost, not least because the request may require the employer to search in many different places for the employee information, which by its nature may not
  • Eckstrom Presents Webinar on Getting Hourly Workers onto Workplace by Facebook

    Bringing thousands of frontline, hourly employees onto a Workplace by Facebook network creates a range of questions and challenges for large organizations. How does a company prevent potential wage and hour violations, govern for the use of personal devices at work, and communicate the difference between “required” and “optional” use of the platform?

    Irvine Partner Allison Eckstrom will join collaboration expert Carrie Basham Young, CEO of Talk Social to Me, on June 6 to share practical solutions for the most common barriers that prevent hourly workers from participating on Workplace. Click here to register or here to learn more.

    Ideal attendees for this webinar include CHROs, CLOs, CCOs, in-house counsel and other decision-makers involved in providing technology, education and programs to hourly employees. Attendees will come away with a stronger understanding of how to be “Better, Together,” without breaking the law.

    At Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner, Eckstrom represents

    California High Court Adopts New Test For Independent Contractors

    California High Court Adopts New Test For Independent Contractors

    May 2, 2018

    Authored by: Bryan Cave At Work

    In its decision on April 30, the California Supreme Court established a new test for classifying workers as independent contractors, with significant implications for the so-called “gig economy.” In Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles, the Supreme Court laid out the “ABC Test,” which presumptively considers all workers to be employees and permits an independent contractor classification only if the hiring entity can show that all of the following conditions are met:

  • The worker has freedom from control or direction of the hiring entity over how to perform the work, both under contract and in fact;
  • The service is outside the company’s usual course of business or outside of all the places of business for which the service is performed; and
  • The worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation or business of the same nature as the work performed for the hiring
  • Post-Contractual Non-Competes – a never ending story

    April 30, 2018

    Categories

    There are few clauses in employment contracts more heavily debated than Non-Competition Clauses (post-contractual non-competes). While employers tend to include them rather easily in order to protect company secrets beyond the term of an employment, strict and mandatory provisions under German law differ from those found in most other jurisdictions. For post-contractual non-competes to be enforceable, an entire catalogue of requirements must be met, including a mandatory compensation payment of at least 50% of the employee`s total earnings for the maximum term of two years – to name just the two most prominent requirements. Because of the potential financial impact on employers, it is highly advisable to carefully consider whether post-contractual non-competes are necessary at all and, if so, whether they will be enforceable.

    Two recent decisions in January 2018 by the Federal Labor Court/ BAG (10 AZR 392/179) and by the Appeals Court/ LAG Düsseldorf (Az: 7 Sa 185/17)

    New York Passes Anti-Sexual Harassment Measures: What All Employers Must Know

    On April 12, 2018, Governor Andrew Cuomo signed the New York state budget into law.  Beyond the dollars and cents associated with a typical budget bill, the legislation included new requirements for private and public employers to address sexual harassment in the workplace. While effective dates for the various measures are staggered over the next year, employers should start preparing now to comply with each provision:

    • Effective immediately: The budget bill amended the New York State Human Rights Law to prohibit harassment against “non-employees” who provide services under a contract, including contractors, vendors, and consultants. If an employer knew or should have known that a protected “non-employee” was sexually harassed at its office or workplace, the employer may be liable if it does not take appropriate action.
    • Effective July 9, 2018: Employers may include nondisclosure/confidentiality clauses in settlement or release agreements dealing with sexual harassment claims only if the

    GDPR HR Series: Employee Information Notices About Personal Data – Your Key Questions Answered

    Following the combination of the Labor & Employment practices at Bryan Cave and BLP, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner’s combined team now includes over 120 employment lawyers in offices across the US, UK, France, Germany and Russia, with excellent capabilities and a strong network in Asia. Committed to collaboration, and with our strengthened offering, experience and substantive knowledge advising clients on GDPR, we bring you our new ‘GDPR HR Issues’  blog series. Drawing on key insights from across our team, the series highlights the key GDPR issues affecting employers.

    The General Data Protection Regulation (‘GDPR’) comes into force in less than two months. From an HR perspective it imposes data obligations on any US, European or other employer with EU-based staff. Failure to comply with the GDPR regime can result in significant fines and disruption to your business. Are you ready?

    Our first blog deals with ‘privacy notices’ aimed at staff.

    Supreme Court Rejects “Narrow” Reading of Overtime Exemption and Concludes that Auto Dealership Service Advisors are Exempt From Overtime

    On its second trip to the U.S. Supreme Court, a six-year-long dispute between five auto dealership employees and their employer came to an end when the Supreme Court found that the employees were properly classified as exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).  In the case, plaintiffs Hector Navarro and four other employees worked as service advisors—employees who meet and greet customers bringing their cars to dealerships for service or maintenance and suggest and sell such services to customers.

    The service advisors in this case filed suit in 2012, claiming back pay under the FLSA for hours worked in excess of 40 in a week on the basis that they were misclassified as exempt.  Specifically, the employees argued that they neither sold nor repaired vehicles and, therefore, were improperly denied overtime in violation of the FLSA.  The employees also alleged violation of California state wage and hour laws.

    The attorneys of Bryan Cave LLP 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.