After the Court of Justice of the European Union declared the EU-U.S. Safe Harbor Framework invalid in October 2015, multinational companies with employees in the EU are facing the question how to legally transfer personal data. Current developments in the process of the proposed EU-U.S. Privacy Shield result in further uncertainty for companies relying on transatlantic data flows.
Employee Data Protection in the EU is subject to major changes, notable to multinational companies with employees in the EU.
A few days ago, after 4 years of negotiation, the European Parliament adopted the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). As it is planned to be effective in 2018, companies should be aware that they only have two years from now to prepare for compliance.
In the heady days of the Coalition Government, gender pay gap reporting started to get some traction on the political agenda. This led to the 2011 initiative ‘Think, Act, Report’ which encouraged employers to voluntarily publish gender pay gap information. According to a Guardian article in August 2014, citing a parliamentary question from the shadow Equalities Minster at the time, 200 companies signed up to the initiative but only four of those ever published any data. £90,000 of public money later and we were clearly no further on.
In a landmark decision on January 12, 2016, the CEDH (European Court of Human Rights), ruled that employers have the right to read their employees private emails sent during working hours, on condition that this surveillance remains reasonable.
Relevant firms in the UK have until March 7, 2016 to appoint a “whistleblowers’ champion,” who then has until September 7, 2016 to oversee their firm’s readiness for the new whistleblowing regime.
The new whistleblowing regime: why make the change?
Since the 2013 Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards recommendations were published in the UK, the Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”) has been examining ways to ensure that individuals working in financial services feel able and encouraged to speak up when they have concerns to avoid the same financial scandals of the past.
Asia Employment Law Update
Proposed Regulations May Complicate Reductions in Force in China
On December 31st, 2014, Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security (“MOHRSS”) issued a notice to solicit public opinions on the draft Regulations on Personnel Cutbacks by Enterprises (“Draft Regulations”). The Draft Regulations set out detailed implementing rules for “mass layoffs” (defined under the Labor Contract Law as being a layoff of more than 10% of the workforce or more than 20 employees) and, if adopted in their current form, will further complicate the process for conducting reductions in force in China.
After a long wait the time has finally come: the draft ministerial bill regarding the reform of the German Act on the Supply of Temporary Employees (Arbeitnehmerüberlassungsgesetz – AÜG) is out. On November 16, 2015, the draft bill entered “early coordination,” i.e. a period of coordination with the Office of the Federal Chancellor prior to coordination between the various ministerial departments. The cabinet decision is due by the end of the year. The law is expected to come into effect on January 1, 2017.
You know how you wait for ages for a bus to come (well, we do in Europe) and then three come along at once? Well it’s a little like that in the data privacy arena right now, as far as transfer of international personal data is concerned, anyhow. For years, there has been a reasonably steady and fairly consistent position from the various bodies responsible for this complicated and often confusing area of law, but in the last few weeks we have been hit with a significant change overnight and we are all left wondering where to get off.
In 2010, Germany’s Federal Labor Court (Bundesarbeitsgericht) abolished the principle of collective bargaining unity, commonly referred to as “Tarifeinheit” (“One business, one collective agreement”). As a consequence, since then it has been possible that two different collective bargaining agreements applied for the same group of employees within the same operation. This ruling is supposed to be the major reasons why there have been more strikes in the last couple of months in Germany than ever before.
In the recent case of Ramphal v. Department of Transport (DoT) the tricky question of where HR should draw the line in a disciplinary matter between guiding the decision-maker on the right decision, and making that decision for them, was considered. The results weren’t great for the HR manager involved in this case…
