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.
Under the EU General Data Protection Regulation, data controllers must provide data subjects with access to all of the personal data that the data controller processes about them if the data subject requests it. In a recent case, the Data Protection Agency considered whether an employer was entitled to refuse to provide access to all of the contents of a former employee's work email account.
The Data Protection Agency recently issued a decision seriously criticising an employer which did not respond adequately after receiving a deletion request from a former employee relating to video content. The decision demonstrates that employers must carefully consider whether a request for deletion constitutes a withdrawal of consent, as any personal data processed on the basis of the consent must be deleted without undue delay, unless the employer (already) has another lawful basis for the processing.
The Western High Court recently ruled that an employee who had entered into a severance agreement – and was represented by her professional organisation during this process – was barred from claiming compensation under the Anti-discrimination Act. Pursuant to this ruling, employers should bear in mind that when a severance agreement contains a provision in full and final settlement of any possible claims between the employee and employer, the provision must be interpreted according to its wording.
The government and Parliament recently made a series of political agreements to expand and extend the current economic stimulus packages regarding COVID-19, including the compensation schemes regarding wages and fixed costs, and to implement various new measures. This article outlines the impact of these agreements on employers and employees during the COVID-19 crisis.
The government has enacted a bill on wage compensation for private sector employers. In addition to the act, the Ministry of Industry, Business and Financial Affairs has issued an executive order on the wage compensation scheme. The bill and executive order reflect the agreement between the government and the social partners regarding wage compensation for businesses which, as a consequence of the current economic situation, are facing dismissals.
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 bill amending the Sickness Benefits Act has recently been enacted to mitigate the economic consequences of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic for employers and self-employed persons. The bill extends the scope of employers' right to reimbursement of sickness benefits and self-employed persons' right to receive sickness benefits, provided that the sickness absence is caused by COVID-19.
The Labour Court has ruled that a bank could prohibit its employees from investing in cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin. This decision is an example of the way in which employers' managerial rights can, in certain situations, entail a right to establish rules for transactions or dealings that directly relate to employees' private life.
The Board of Equal Treatment recently concluded that the fact that a replacement worker in a cleaning company had received fewer shifts during her pregnancy did not constitute gender discrimination. The board concluded that the worker had not established any facts that indicated that her pregnancy had been instrumental to the reduction of her working hours or the fact that she had not been permanently employed.
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 Western High Court recently found that the dismissal of an employee who had called in sick on the first day after a period of childbirth-related leave and holiday did not contravene the Act on the Equal Treatment of Men and Women. The judgment exemplifies that if an employee's dismissal has a close temporal connection with their return from childbirth-related leave, this does not automatically raise a presumption of discrimination.
The Supreme Court recently held that an employer had been unjustified to summarily dismiss an employee with retroactive effect after discovering that he had covertly recorded a conversation with his manager. The court had to decide whether the employee's secret audio recording could be regarded as a material breach of the employment relationship and justify summary dismissal.
The Board of Equal Treatment recently found that an amendment to a university lecturer's homeworking agreement and her subsequent termination did not conflict with the Anti-discrimination Act. The board held that there had been no indirect discrimination against the lecturer on the grounds of her national or ethnic origin, as it was her choice of residence rather than her ethnic or national origin that had given rise to the situation that led to her termination.
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.