Not so much groundbreaking stuff, but some interesting topics in this newsletter:
– an employer is justified requiring an employee to agree to commit to the employment relationship for longer when providing extensive professional training. Typical German, the Federal Employment Court also set guidelines which period of training justifies how long a commitment.
– background checks are allowed provided the information gathered or requested is relevant to the position applied for. As in New Zealand, its a balancing exercise between the applicant’s right to privacy and the employer’s right to verify the suitability of the candidate.
– also some more detail on transfer companies as means to circumvent fixed term employment protection provisions and the application of s613a BGB (which protects employees when the business is sold).
Baker&McKenzie is great when it comes to highlighting developments across the globe. Apart from lots of business as usual especially in the UK and US, the summary is noteworthy for the odd stuff, such as
– China’s SC clarifies employment law rules, such as non-compete compensation levels
– new mandatory minimum salary levels in Colombia
– the Russia Labour Court declaring that contractual penalties for ‘illoyal behaviour’ are invalid.
Am always intrigued when reading about employment cases from these corners of the world. It sounds patronising but part of me seems to automatically assumes that employment disputes in those countries just never make it to court. Either because there are no rules or everything is so corrupt that it is pointless anyway. Thats wrong, of course. Rules and Courts are everywhere. Whether they work fairly and independently, thats the question and challenge.