As the UK’s Parliament has now been dissolved until the general election on 4 July 2024, most draft legislation will no longer proceed. However, some unfinished business is passed through agreement between the government and the opposition parties in what is known as the “wash up” process. These include laws on non-disclosure clauses, fair allocation of tips, additional paternity leave where the mother (or primary adopter) of a child dies, and the statutory code on fire and rehire.
Discussion of AI adoption in the workplace seems to have reached fever pitch in recent months – with good reason. In this article for IEL, we summarize the current legal framework and regulatory attitudes, and venture our insights into what employers can realistically do now to mitigate legal risk and put them in the best position with respect to future developments.
The Labour Appeal Court in South Africa recently clarified for employers the situation in which their employees’ cannabis use at home becomes applicable to their roles at work. In Enever v. Barloworld Equipment South Africa, a Division of Barloworld South Africa, the LAC ordered the employer to reinstate and pay over ZAR 1 million in backpay to an employee dismissed for repeatedly testing positive for cannabis use. The judgment reiterates the requirement of rationality where employers seek to limit an employee’s private conduct
The employment supervisory authority has published its annual report summarizing its findings from inspections carried out over 2023. The main objective of the inspections was to assess the extent to which employers comply with the basic rules on employment. We highlight the most important takeaways of the authority’s report and our expectations for the future.
A recent decision of the Hong Kong Court reaffirmed the robust approach taken by the Court in examining the enforceability of a non-compete clause in an employment context even at the interim-interim stage. A former employer has the burden of proof to adduce evidence to substantiate that a non-compete clause is reasonable and necessary for the protection of the former employer’s legitimate business interests for it to be enforceable. The Court will take a very robust approach in examining the scope of the restraint, and the specific basis of justifying a non-compete clause even at the interim-interim stage when a former employer seeks to restrain the ex-employee from joining the new employer competitor by relying on the non-compete clause in the employment agreement.
On 19 May 2024, the Law of Ukraine “On Amendments to the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses to Improve Liability for Violation of Military Registration Rules and Legislation on Defense, Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization” No. 3696-IX dated 9 May 2024 came into force. The Law increases liability for violations of the military registration rules and legislation on defense, mobilization preparation, and mobilization. In particular, it significantly increases the amount of administrative fines. The Law also extends the timeframe for imposing administrative fines and changes the procedure for their imposition.
On 15 May 2024, Law of Ukraine No. 3677-IX “On Amendments to the Labor Code of Ukraine on Labor Relations in the Course of Transfer of a Business Entity” dated 25 April 2024 came into force, regulating succession in labor relations in the event of a change of company ownership, among others.
The pandemic of medical certificate abuse is rife in both the public and private sectors, with many labor court cases in South Africa having decided that forging a sick note constitutes serious misconduct. A recent case of sick leave abuse in South Africa that found its way to the Labor Appeal Court again confirmed that an employer’s zero-tolerance approach to dishonesty and fraud was correct and that employees who are dishonest in their timekeeping practices will likely have a bitter pill to swallow when their actions are revealed.
In the case concerning a matter of unfair discrimination under the Employment Equity Act, the South African Labor Court ruled that, in this instance, the refusal to employ a job applicant because of their criminal history was unfair discrimination based on arbitrary grounds. This case serves as a reminder to employers that statutory protection against unfair discrimination also applies to employment applicants, and that there are risks in the rote reliance on factors used to select or reject staff.
Artificial intelligence (AI) systems can help improve work processes, yet they also carry the risks of liability, penalties, and reputational damage. Companies deploying AI must understand their responsibilities and obligations under the current regulatory frameworks within the EU and the anticipated requirements of the EU AI Act. Particularly for the HR department, it is prudent for HR managers to implement the following basic principles regarding AI.