Multinationals inevitably vary their employee compensation packages—their pay rates, employee incentives, bonus plans, benefits offerings—by country of employment. It is pointless to inquire into some multinational’s entry-level total compensation package for its managers, engineers, in-house lawyers, computer techs, punch-press operators, cashiers, secretaries, truck drivers or fry cooks without specifying their place of employment.
Articles Discussing Employment Issues For Multinational Employers.
Equal employment opportunity initiatives—human resources policies, handbook and code of conduct provisions, compliance standards, training modules and dispute resolution procedures that address discrimination, harassment and diversity—have long been vital to U.S. employers. In the global economy, the equal employment opportunity issue has gone global. As American-headquartered multinationals align an ever-increasing list of human resources policies and “offerings” internationally, cross-border efforts at promoting workplace fairness have become increasingly vital, but also increasingly complex
The question of whether a multinational must translate employee communications overseas traditionally was not asked very often. Decades ago, multinationals ran their international operations as siloed units. Headquarters exercised little day-to-day oversight over foreign personnel matters and transmitted few if any messages or documents directly to overseas rank-and-file workers. In that era, a multinational’s work orders to local laborers at a plant in, say, Montreal came from onsite Quebecois personnel administrators—in French.
Effective May 30, 2017, Japan amended its omnibus data protection law, the Personal Information Protection Act (“PIPA”), to add new compliance requirements that will have an immediate impact on many U.S. multinational employers with employees in Japan. As with the European Union’s recent revamping of its data protection regime through the General Data Protection Regulation, which will go into effect on May 25, 2018,1 the amendment to PIPA (the “Amendment”) is intended to update Japan’s data protection regime to address the rapid advance in information technology, the rise of the Digital Economy, and the massive increase in global data transfers. The Amendment is the first material change to PIPA since it was originally enacted in 2003.
The White House formally notified Congress on Thursday of the Trump administration’s intent to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The notification letter from U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer marked the start of a 90-day window to consult with members of Congress on developing negotiation priorities before beginning formal negotiations with Canada and Mexico as early as August 16, 2017.
“Posting of workers,” a common practice within the European Union, refers to the assignment of an employee to work in another EU Member State (the “host country”) on a temporary basis.1 Under this arrangement, also known as a secondment, the posted employee works in the host country but does not become fully integrated into the host country’s labor market.
Last month, the European Union and U.S. officials announced final approval of the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield (Privacy Shield), replacing the Safe Harbor which was invalidated by the Court of Justice of the European Union in October 2015. Like it predecessor, the Privacy Shield will allow organizations based in the United States to self-certify compliance with the Privacy Shield’s requirements permitting personal data of EU subjects to be transferred to the U.S., but with an enhanced enforcement regime, among other things.
Since the European Court of Justice declared invalid, on October 6, 2015,1 the Safe Harbor agreement between the U.S. Department of Commerce and the European Commission for the transfer of personal data, hundreds of U.S. multinationals have been struggling to find an alternative while waiting hopefully for the Safe Harbor’s replacement. The Privacy Shield, effective as of July 12, 2016, may provide the alternative these organizations have been seeking. For U.S. multinationals that relied on the Safe Harbor to transfer human resources data from EU subsidiaries to their U.S. parent corporation, the Privacy Shield will seem familiar notwithstanding U.S. and EU officials’ public pronouncements that this new data transfer mechanism substantially enhances the now much-maligned Safe Harbor. Nonetheless, U.S. multinationals should consider several caveats before strapping on the Privacy Shield.
Earlier today the European Union and U.S. officials announced the final approval of the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield data transfer agreement (“the Privacy Shield”). Beginning August 1, 2016, organizations based in the U.S. will be able to self-certify their compliance with the Privacy Shield.
According to reports, the European Union and the United States have agreed on changes to the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield (Privacy Shield) which will be sent to the EU member states and the college of the 28 EU commissioners ultimately paving the way for final approval early next month. “We have agreed on the changes and will be able to adopt it in early July,” said European Commission spokesman Christian Wigand.
Earlier today, the European Parliament passed a non-legislative resolution saying the EU Commission should go back to negotiating with the United States to remedy “deficiencies” in the proposed EU-U.S. Privacy Shield for EU citizens’ data which is transferred to the US for commercial purposes.
Executive Summary: Employers in Russia and companies doing business in Russia should be prepared to comply with recently enacted requirements governing storage and processing of the personal data of Russian citizens, which are designed to provide additional protection for this data.
Bill 132, entitled “Sexual Violence and Harassment Action Plan Act (Supporting Survivors and Challenging Sexual Violence and Harassment), 2015” (hereinafter the “Bill”) has now been passed into law in Ontario and will be in force September 8, 2016. The Bill amends various statutes with respect to sexual violence, sexual harassment, domestic violence and other matters. It amends various provisions of the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act (the “Act”) and creates new obligations for employers surrounding the prevention, training, investigation and resolution of workplace harassment, particularly workplace sexual harassment.
Earlier today, the European Commission (the Commission) issued a draft “adequacy decision” as well as the texts that will constitute the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield (the Privacy Shield). This includes the Privacy Shield Principles companies have to abide by, as well as written commitments by the U.S. Government on the enforcement of the arrangement, including assurance on the safeguards and limitations concerning access to data by public authorities.
The decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to invalidate Safe Harbor in October 2015 sent shockwaves throughout the international business community. Safe Harbor was a certification mechanism that allowed personal data to be transferred across the Atlantic while guaranteeing that the personal data would be subject to the same protections as under EU law. More than 4,000 US based companies used this transfer mechanism. When the CJEU invalidated Safe Harbor, multinational companies were left wondering how they could now validly transfer employee information to their US affiliates.