Special thanks to co-presenters Elizabeth Ebersole, Barbara Klementz, Dionna Shear, Amanda Cohen, Benjamin Ho, Jennifer Bernardo, Kaitlin Thompson, Marredia Crawford (Director, ID&E, Americas), Goli Rahimi, Paul Evans, Monica Kurnatowska and Blair Robinson.
Our team is busy advising multinational companies on employment law issues surrounding workplace
With special thanks to Nadege Dallais (France), Emma Glazener (Netherlands), Fermin Guardiola (Spain), Stephen Ratcliffe (United Kingdom), Bernhard Trappehl (Germany) and Lucille Vallet (France).
Last week a group of our favorite European colleagues joined us in the Bay Area for a few special client visits. Even if you weren’t in the room, we’ll share a few key headlines here. (And, here’s link to listen in to our recent webinar: Global Employment Law Fastpass — Spotlight on Europe!)
From practical tips on the best ways to implement employee redundancies to the expected impact of the recently-passed EU Directive on Pay Transparency, here’s five things to know:
1. The EU Whistleblowing Directive (WBD) Requires Private Employers with 50 or More Workers to Establish a Local, Entity Level Reporting Hotline
The WBD was supposed to be implemented by the EU’s 27 member states by December 2021, but we are still waiting for around 8 EU member states to do so. For example, France, Belgium and Austria have transposed the WBD, Germany has not but is close. Spanish companies with at least 250 employees have until June 13, 2023 to comply. (For more, read our alert here.)
While legislation is still awaited in a number of jurisdictions, we are now in a much better position to see the challenges the WBD poses for global employers. . . and there are several.
Fortunately, we have a multijurisdictional analysis matrix covering five key areas of WBD compliance at a local level available at a fixed fee per jurisdiction so that companies operating in the EU can wrap their arms around this new requirement. The matrix answers questions about the Directive’s scope and implementation requirements for internal procedures, protection of whistleblowers and data privacy issues. Our experienced team of lawyers can then assist with implementing the changes, as well as with training, communications and more.
2. The EU Pay Transparency Directive is Coming and as the Kids Say, It’s Extra
Last month the European Parliament formally adopted the Pay Transparency Directive and its provisions are likely to enter into force in most EU member states in 2026. It’s sort of a big deal, requiring significant attention and touching on many aspects of the employment lifecycle (read our detailed alert here).
A preview: there are pre-employment pay transparency requirements, and broad worker and representative rights to workforce pay information. The impact may be more muted in countries like France where works councils already have access to pay data, though the access will become much more granular under the Directive.
Continue Reading A Hop, Skip and a Jump Around Europe | Insights for US Employers Operating Abroad
California legislators met on April 11, 2023 to discuss a proposed overhaul of employment-related criminal background checks. Simply put, if the Fair Chance Act of 2023 (SB 809) is passed into law, California will have the most restrictive criminal background check law in the country, and will significantly limit the way California employers can vet applicants for employment. Under existing state law, California employers may conduct a criminal background check for most positions only after making an initial offer of employment, and they may make adverse employment decisions based on criminal history only after conducting an individualized assessment that considers the nature of the offense and the duties of the job. While these existing restrictions are significant in their own right, the proposed new law will effectively eliminate criminal history consideration in most circumstances, allowing legislators to further reduce barriers to employment for people with criminal histories.
The Fair Chance Act will, among other things, “make it an unlawful employment practice to take adverse action against an employee or discriminate against an employee in the terms, conditions, or privileges of their employment based on their arrest or conviction history.” SB 809. In essence, the proposed law will all but ban employment-related criminal background checks, except for positions for which such checks are authorized or required by statute. And in the limited circumstances where criminal history checks are permitted, the Fair Chance Act will require employers to post a clear and conspicuous notice informing applicants and employees of their rights. The new law also will impose on employers additional document and data retention obligations for completed background checks.
Continue Reading California Seeks to Ban Most Criminal Background Checks
As discussed in our blog here, in February the National Labor Relations Board issued the McLaren Macomb decision prohibiting employers from “tendering” to employees separation or severance agreements that require employees to broadly waive their rights under the National Labor Relations Act.
Then, on March 22, the NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo issued guidance addressing
As volatility and uncertainty in the global economy continues, many multinationals are taking (or considering) major changes to their workforce composition. Labor costs are typically the largest cost center for any company, so of course businesses need to understand how best to flex up and down as markets change. At the same time, a company’s
We are pleased to share a recent HRD America article, “Severance agreements can’t include non-disparagement, confidentiality clauses,” with quotes from Michael Brewer. This article discusses the recent NLRB ruling that companies can no longer offer severance agreements that include non-disparagement and confidentiality clauses. This ruling could potentially discourage some companies from offering severance packages altogether, while other
On February 21, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a decision in McLaren Macomb holding that employers may not offer employees separation or severance agreements that require employees to broadly waive their rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). In McLaren, a hospital furloughed 11 employees, presenting each with a severance agreement and general release that contained confidentiality and non-disclosure provisions. (See the exact provisions copied below.) The Board majority held that merely “proffering” a severance agreement containing unlawful confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions violated the NLRA because conditioning the receipt of benefits on the “forfeiture of statutory rights plainly has a reasonable tendency to interfere with, restrain, or coerce the exercise of those rights.”
At first blush, this may feel like a sweeping change requiring immediate action. However, it is important to consider this decision with a grain (or two) of salt, breathe and thoughtfully plan your next steps. The key points identified below are designed to help you think through a tailored approach for your organization¾there is not a one-size-fits-all solution. Your approach will depend on the type of workforce you have, your risk tolerance and what you are trying to protect. We are standing by, ready to assist, should you need further guidance.
Key Points
As we find ourselves firmly in the middle of Q1 of 2023, the avalanche of layoff headlines that started last quarter just keeps coming. Whether you follow the school of thought that the US entered a recession in summer of 2022 (after two consecutive quarters of negative gross domestic product) or not (given a strong labor market and corporate earnings growth), more and more companies are having to address overzealous pandemic hiring and the backlash from soaring company valuations. One comparatively “easy” place for multinational companies to cut costs — US workforces, where employment is generally “at-will” and absent contractual entitlements or triggering statutory notice requirements, layoffs can be carried out relatively quickly. With that said, as always, moving too quickly can create headaches that actually can be avoided — or at least dulled — with a little planning.
Here are four tips to keep in mind when planning layoffs in the US:
Larger layoffs have the potential of triggering the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 (WARN Act) (and analogous state laws, known as state “mini-WARN acts”) statutes. These statutes impose notice and information obligations, which can be tricky to keep track of, and carry potentially heavy penalties for noncompliance.
Federal WARN requires employers to give advanced notice to affected employees in the event of a covered mass layoff or plant closing. Under the WARN, employers must provide 60 days’ notice of termination to the impacted employees, union representatives (if applicable), and certain government authorities. Under some state mini-WARN acts, 90 days’ notice is required. Click here for more on WARN.
Continue Reading 4 Tips To Avoid (Or At Least Dull) Headaches When Conducting Layoffs In The US
Special thanks to Bradford Newman and Nandu Machiraju.
Employers have been keeping a close watch for rulemaking and action by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) restricting non-competes. Earlier this month, the FTC answered the Executive Order’s call with enforcement activities and a proposed rule signaling a considerable effort to prioritize employer-employee non-compete covenants as
The new year always brings new challenges for employers, but California employers in particular face a world of change in 2023.
In our 75-minute “quick hits” format, we help you track what California employers need to keep top-of-mind for 2023 and provide practical takeaways to help you navigate the new landscape.
This webinar helps to
