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.
Articles Discussing Employment Issues For Multinational Employers.
A recent case from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Gordon v. Altus Group Ltd.,1 serves as a reminder that employers should not exaggerate facts when asserting a defense of “just cause” termination.
A number of employment requirements set forth under the Integrated Accessibility Standards (“IAS”) will become effective on January 1, 2016. This will be the latest phase of the staggered implementation of the IAS regulations that were enacted under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 (the “AODA”). Through the AODA, Ontario has enacted laws and standards to improve accessibility for people with disabilities, with the stated goal of having the province be fully accessible for people with disabilities by 2025. The IAS requirements – which are phased based on the size and type of the organization – can help Ontario employers make accessibility a regular part of recruiting, hiring, and supporting employees with disabilities.
n a landmark decision that will dramatically affect thousands of U.S. companies that transfer personal data from the European Union (“EU”) to the United States, the European Union Court of Justice (“ECJ”) yesterday invalidated the Safe Harbor Framework, which had permitted U.S. companies to comply with EU restrictions on the transfer of personal data outside the EU.
Non-Canadian workers are increasingly suing their employers in Canadian courts for human rights violations allegedly committed outside Canada by the companies themselves or by other entities in their supply chains. This development seems to be spurred by recent U.S. cases limiting the rights of workers and their representatives from bringing these claims in the United States.
On June 12, 2015, Mexico amended the Federal Labor Law (“FLL”), adopting the increase in the legal working age that was enacted through a constitutional amendment in 2014. (Click here to read our discussion of the 2014 constitutional amendment). The FLL – the country’s employment law code – codifies the constitutional amendment that increased the legal working age from 14 to 15 years old and from 16 to 18 years old (where applicable).
Australia’s national minimum wage and modern award pay rates are set to increase by 2.5% starting July 1, 2015. On June 2, 2015, the Minimum Wage Panel (the Panel) of the Fair Work Commission announced an increase to the minimum rates. The increase will affect over 1.86 million employees in Australia whose salary is at the minimum rate.
As we enter the New Year, Littler’s international practice has identified a number of key employment and labor law issues for multinational companies (MNCs). The past year has brought to the fore some challenging issues likely to grow in importance in 2015, among them the increasing strength of global unions as well as the ever-growing importance of corporate compliance. While some of these topics are certainly familiar—data privacy and whistleblower protection, for example—the continuing importance and expansion of these issues highlight their increased complexity and correspondingly increased challenges.
With an increasingly global marketplace, companies are turning to international secondments and postings to place talent around the world. Planning an international secondment or placement is a complex undertaking, and a host of issues must be considered, from immigration to compensation and tax planning. Often overlooked in the planning process is the home and host country’s treatment of same-sex marriage and protections based on sexual orientation and gender identification, and how such laws will affect an employee’s placement. Tiffany Downs and Scott Wagner, attorneys in FordHarrison’s Employee Benefits practice group, address these issues and suggest some best practices to help ensure successful placements in HR Strategies for Same-Sex Secondments Internationally, a two-part article published by InsideCounsel magazine and available on FordHarrison’s Knowledge Base here (part 1) and here (part 2).
At one time or another, many companies with international operations may look to transfer employees between the company’s offices. There are many reasons why companies do so.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum1 upholding the dismissal of an Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) suit, left a great deal unanswered. The Kiobel decision did, however, limit the potential for future ATCA claims by applying a strong presumption against that statute’s extraterritorial application. There have since been some mixed appellate court decisions regarding the statute’s extraterritorial application,2 but a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit may reflect a greater willingness by certain federal courts to accept ATCA suits against corporate defendants. In Doe v. Nestle USA, Inc. et al., the appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision to grant the corporate defendants’ motions to dismiss the plaintiffs’ ATCA claims, gave the plaintiffs the opportunity to re-plead their complaint in light of the presumption against the ATCA’s overseas application, and rather broadly construed still unresolved issues of corporate and “aiding and abetting” liability.
What started as a local effort has now become a national endeavor, as the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs officially agree to join forces to create programs that will benefit both Mexican nationals working in the United States as well as their employers.
Mexico’s Federal Conciliation and Arbitration Board recently published regulations to set a uniform standard for all labor boards to follow when determining whether outsourcing has occurred. These regulations, entitled “Employment Relationship within the Outsourcing Framework” (“Relación de Trabajo en el Régimen de Subcontratación”), interpret the new outsourcing requirements established in the labor law reform of 2012 and serve as guidance to determine who – whether the contractor that hired the worker to perform services or the contractor’s customer (the business that benefits from the services) – is liable for any employment obligations owed to that worker.
The Secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) and the Secretariat of Labor and Social Welfare of Mexico (STPS) signed an agreement on April 3, 2014, to strengthen the relationship between both nations and promote compliance of the labor laws of both countries, especially as it relates to the protection of migrant workers. Through this joint effort, both governments seek to ensure that migrant workers become more knowledgeable of their legal rights, as well as of the employer’s obligations.
On August 1, 2013, Brazil enacted Law 12.846, a new anti-corruption law that establishes a comprehensive system of corporate and individual liability for acts of corruption against Brazilian and foreign public officials or governmental bodies.1 The new anti-bribery law becomes effective on January 28, 2014. Companies conducting direct or indirect activities in Brazil – whether through an employee, independent contractor, subsidiary, or as part of a supply chain – should pay special attention to the contours of this law, the severe penalties for violations, and recommended steps to ensure full compliance.