|
|
 |
|
|
State not employer to cover cost of 'dam burst' of holiday entitlements
|
|
|
|
In the previous newsletter we reported that a 'dam burst' of employees’ holiday entitlements was on the horizon.
Some months ago, Utrecht's subdistrict court ruled that allowing a period of sickness absenteeism to have an influence
on the holiday allowance is contrary to what is expected of a 'good employer'. More recently, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal
handed down a judgement that an employee who is in dispute with his employer cannot based their case on the European Directive
nor on the 'good employer' argument.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Employer not liable for fatal accident despite penalty from Labour Inspectorate
|
|
|
In cases involving work-related accidents an employer is quickly deemed to be liable.
However, the subdistrict court in Middelburg recently ruled that an employer was not liable
for a fatal accident as he had not been negligent in respect of his duty of care.
This was despite a penalty having been imposed by the Labour Inspectorate in respect
of the selfsame accident.
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Withdrawal of an application for dissolving an employment contract. And then?
|
|
|
An employer who has submitted an application to have an employment contract dissolved can subsequently withdraw
it should he consider that the subdistrict court has awarded an employee an excessive level of compensation.
A recent case in which an employee submitted his own request for his employment contract to be dissolved following
the employer withdrawing his application turned into a costly affair for the employer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Employer liable for errors by company doctor
|
|
|
Until fairly recently, it was presumed from case law emerging from the lower courts that an employer was not liable
for errors made by a company doctor. An employer could depend on the doctor's opinion so long as he had no reason for doubt.
The Central Appeals Tribunal has called a halt to this development in case law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Proposed amendment to the pension
|
|
|
On 2 September 2009, a plenary session of the Second Chamber of the Dutch Parliament considered a proposed amendment
to the Dutch Pension Act (PW) concerning the participation on the boards of pension funds of those who are entitled to pensions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Disclaimer
|
|
|
While considerable care and attention has been devoted to compiling the content of this newsletter, AKD accepts no liability for the consequences of any incomplete information or inaccuracies
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
