Following consultation in 2019, an executive order on the psychological working environment has been issued by the Working Environment Authority. The executive order aims to clarify the psychological working environment rules for employers and employees in order to facilitate the prevention of mental wellbeing issues. The executive order entered into force on 1 November 2020.
In May 2020 a bill was passed to provide sickness benefits to employees who are at a higher risk of becoming seriously ill from COVID-19 or the relative of a person who is at a higher risk. The temporary scheme ran until 31 August 2020. Parliament has now passed a new bill which, among other things, extends this scheme until 31 December 2020.
Under the Act on Equal Treatment of Men and Women, if an employee is dismissed while on pregnancy or maternity leave, the employer will have the onus of proving that the dismissal was not in any way connected to these circumstances. But what does it take for an employer to discharge the reversed burden of proof? The Supreme Court recently decided this issue.
The government and the social partners recently agreed to establish a new temporary work distribution scheme in order to prevent dismissals. Based on the tripartite agreement, a new work distribution scheme will be established by statute and all employers will be able to use this scheme. Employers may still apply the existing work distribution rules but not concurrently with the new rules.
The government and parliamentary parties recently passed a bill to provide sickness benefits to employees who are at a higher risk of becoming seriously ill from COVID-19 or the relative of a person in the higher-risk group. The scheme originally applied to absences up to and including 31 August 2020, but the government and a majority in Parliament have now agreed to extend the scheme on the same terms up to and including 31 December 2020.
As part of its COVID-19 measures, the government has adopted changes to the Executive Order on Payment of Unemployment Benefits to facilitate the implementation of distribution of work plans. Distribution of work plans can be implemented to allow employees to receive supplementary unemployment benefits during the period in which the plan is in force (up to 13 weeks).
A district court has confirmed a 2018 Equal Treatment Board finding that the dismissal of a female wheelchair user who had just returned from maternity leave contravened the Anti-discrimination Act and the Act on Equal Treatment of Men and Women. The decision emphasises that employers which implement redundancies for operational reasons for employees with disabilities should always be able to explain in detail why it is the employee with the disability who is a candidate for redundancy.
In a recent case, the courts ruled that an employer was not liable to pay damages for an injury sustained by a temp in a car accident when driving from her home to her temporary place of work. Pursuant to the Workers' Compensation Act, an accident is recognised as an industrial injury only if it is a consequence of the work or working conditions. This judgment supports existing case law that accidents occurring during transport to and from an employee's place of work are not covered by the act.
A care assistant was treated in a sexually offensive manner by a disabled individual for whom she had been hired to care. The Eastern High Court determined that the care assistant's employer was not responsible for the disabled individual's behaviour, but that her subsequent dismissal contravened the Act on Equal Treatment of Men and Women.
Against the backdrop of the #MeToo movement, Parliament adopted a bill to amend the Act on Equal Treatment of Men and Women. Now, the social partners and the Danish Working Environment Authority have joined forces to launch the 'Where's the limit?' campaign, which aims to prevent unacceptable and offensive conduct in the workplace and create a working environment that is free from sexual harassment.
The Supreme Court recently examined whether the dismissal of a disabled employee from a publicly funded, reduced-hours job when he reached the mandatory retirement age – and the public funding lapsed – violated the Anti-discrimination Act. The court found that the employer's receipt of a subsidy from the local authorities for the reduced-hours job had to be regarded as a clear condition of employment and that the basis of employment had thus lapsed when the wage subsidy ended.