Netherlands – Temporary Emergency Measure Bridging Employment (‘NOW’)

31 Marzo 2020

  • Paesi Bassi
  • Lavoro

Today during Covid–19 circumstances Gig economy approach has become more necessity rather than theoretical possibility. But still transformation of Latvian business and employment market does not run so smooth. Why so?

At the end of year 2019 the State Labour Inspectorate of Latvia in cooperation with private partners released results of a research on new forms of employment presence and potential in Latvia (http://www.vdi.gov.lv/files/jnf_gala_zinojums.pdf). The results of this research as well of other international researches are rather controversial as do not conform to the real situation in the country.

Although the aforementioned researches claim that employers in Latvia are supporters of old-style employment and are not willing to change the practice, in fact the laws of Latvia in effect do not provide flexibility on the approach of employment.

Covid-19 has badly hit a lot of economies, and actually highlighted the largest challenges – employers to save their business would like to pay less, whereas employees need flexibility as they are required to work remotely and combine their private and work lives.

In this article an analysis of how general conditions of employment applicable today correspond to frame of main five aspects of a Gig economy will be provided.

Employment “one to one” or “one to many”

Gig economy considers that traditional employment has no longer place in our world. The employment should be available among one employer and many employees, many employers and many employees or one employee and many employers, thus employment being in each contractual relations part time, nevertheless all employees are jointly and severally liable for the result of work.

Labour Law of Latvia keeps traditions of employment – one employer and one employee. Likewise part time work is permitted just in statutorily listed cases like to replace an employee in long term absence, in case of increase of the workload in the company, in emergency cases, and in certain areas like culture, sports, banking, education and diplomacy. Moreover, length of a fixed-term employment may not exceed 5 years in total (including extensions). As a result of this majority of employments are open ended.

In order to solve the burden imposed by law, employers often use potential employees as external service providers based on a Service Agreement in this manner imitating self employment. Self employment for a payor is less expensive tax wise, which led authorities to introduce limiting measures for flexibility of entrepreneurs.
In the Law on Personal Income Tax criteria of employment per se where introduced. Namely, an agreement with an individual can be deemed as contractual relationships subject to payment of salary and accordingly payroll if at least one of the following conditions has been ascertained:

  • the individual has economic dependence upon the party to whom he/she provides services;
  • lack of assumption of financial risks in the fulfilment of work or no liability in respect to lost debtor debts;
  • integration of the contracted individual into the company to which services are provided (e.g. existence of a work or recreational areas, a duty to observe internal rules of the company);
  • availability of holidays and paid leave in accordance with schedules of the company;
  • work shall be performed under management or control of the other contracting party – the customer, and the individual is deprived of possibility to involve in the service provision his/ her personnel or sub-contractors; or
  • the individual is not owner of the assets used while rendering services to the company.

Respectively in case the State Revenue Service of Latvia (tax authority) detects presence of the criteria listed, it shall be entitled to reclassify the contractual relations of the seemingly independent parties into employment relations as a result of which remuneration paid to the individual would be subject to full payroll as any other salary gained on basis of Employment Agreement. The tax expense threshold the companies playing with by out of box employment results in significant difference:

  • payroll in case of employment – progressive personal income tax between 20% to 23% depending on the income (at certain level the annual income of an individual may though be subject to maximum rate of the personal income tax – 31.4%); social security contributions of 35.09%; majority of these expenses being on the employer’s shoulders; whereas
  • taxes applicable in case of self-employment – progressive personal income tax between 20% to 31.4% depending on the income; social security contributions of 32.15%, basis of these compulsory contributions being a freely chosen income; in this case if the contracted individual is a registered economic operator – the taxes are all his/her liability, whereas if the individual has not registered with tax authorities independent economic activity, the taxes shall be withheld at the moment of disbursement of the remuneration and paid into the State budget by the company contracting the individual.

In circumstances of Covid–19 the traditional employment scenarios chosen by entrepreneurs due to rather strict statutory rules have heavily impacted operation of businesses as employers had to either dismiss their employees or let them in idleness with crisis management allowance established by the State as support during Covid–19.

The outcome showed that applying of different type of “employment” structures, like contracting specialists on the need to basis or crowdsourcing of employees among numerous employers could have facilitated challenges the employers face today in many ways – provide availability of different specialists for the project/ time period required, limit expenses in respect to the employees whom the companies were forced to let in idleness, and alike, all of this still keeping the business running.

Employment volatility as new formula for flexibility

As described earlier, present requirements of the Labour Law of Latvia require employment relationships to be based on clear and sustainable rules thus ensuring predictable and long term support to the employees, both in terms of employment and social security.
The strict approach is even more secured by strict statutory conditions and notice periods under which an employee can be dismissed:

With a notice of immediate effect:

  • while performing work the employee has acted unlawfully and therefore has lost trust of the employer;
  • while performing the work employee is in a state of intoxication (e.g. alcohol, drugs, other); or
  • the employee is unable to perform the contracted work due to a state of health, and this is confirmed by a medical opinion;

With a 10 days notice:

  • in case employee has without justifiable reason materially violated the contracted work order;
  • while performing the work the employee has acted contrary to good morals, and such action is incompatible with the continuation of the employment;
  • the employee has grossly violated work safety rules and endangered safety and health of other persons; or
  • due to temporary incapacity of the employee for work for more than 6 and up to 12 months;

With a one month notice:

  • if the employee is in lack of sufficient professional skills to perform the contracted work;
  • an employee previously employed in the particular position has been reinstated to work;
  • in case of staff redundancy (presuming that employer will not hire immediately new employee in same position); or
  • in case the employer is being liquidated.

Having seen the list of statutory conditions one would definitely agree that only few circumstances are of a regular character, meaning can be actually applied, whereas the rest are seldom met. Sure there is also available an exception out of this strongly established frame – to terminate employment without any specific reason if the employee and employer can reach a mutual agreement. However that may be a challenge – employees are not obliged to participate in negotiations with employers and can simply walk away.

So how much of volatility and flexibility can be reached in such strongly fixed statutory frame?
Practically not much.

Accordingly under Covid–19 circumstances companies have applied staff redundancy condition more than ever, which may not have been necessary if employment structures would be more flexible. Part of employees today let in idleness have started to look for new job even before the actual dismissal, because perception of stability and predictability is the driving force. This actually showing that although employment of a periodical character would not provide long term income and social security, with this approach the employees of Latvia would have been more used and resistant to fast changing circumstances and periods of actual idleness (meaning also – had some savings).

It appears that development of economy and business approaches runs on a speed of light, whereas statutory regulation does not manage to follow in those footsteps. The question is though do we need today law and regulation for each detail, if in practice changes come into our lives so fast. Maybe a better solution would be regulation on general principles and practically providing field of different approaches and solutions which would fit more each business segment and keep economy running also in such extraordinary circumstances as Covid-19.

A close cooperation among numerous employers

The Gig economy concept provides for presence of different types of cooperation among employers and employees, including crowdsourcing of personnel, sharing of working spaces, liaising business operations and sharing liability in respect to work performed.

Under present requirements of employment and tax laws of Latvia having shared workforce is rather complicated. The statutory restrictions keep accountability of employers at a very high level thus at the end of the day the approach of traditional employment – “one employer and one employee” – on Latvian market appears to be the easiest. Likewise the strict statutory rules have developed certain culture also on the employee side – “I have one master” seems the most correct and secure way and any other solutions are simply out of discussion.

As an example, it took years for the Latvian market to admit that employees can be also leased out. Due to long term difficulties with practical applicability of this concept and contractual split of liabilities between lessor and lessee in respect to the employee (being those days at full discretion of the contractual parties), not always being favourable for the employee, in year 2011 changes to the Labour Law were introduced. The amendments established precise definition on what a lease of employees is, the scope of liability and split of duties among the parties resulting therefrom. However not without creating new burdens.

The statutory protection level of employees on the Latvian market has always been very high and same became applicable in case of lease of workforce. No doubt employees have to be protected; however employee lease is a slightly different way of employment and therefore the regulation in place is still not always compatible with differentiation of employment schemes possible. Last but not least, another aspect complicating applicability of lease of employees is that lease of workforce is set as licensable operation. The procedure to obtain license is complicate enough and involves preparation of paper loads, moreover under statutory requirements a license must be obtained even if the employees are leased between related companies. Thus benefits of this employment structure are certainly disputable.

Crowdsourcing of employees is the next step; however theoretically possible already today. Individuals could become self employed specialists and enter into contracts with different companies, thus avoiding of the risk under Law on Personal Income Tax (described in this article earlier) to be recognized as employee of any of these companies provided of course that the individual assumes certain financial risks and does job with his/her own tools in majority. It can be considered also as mitigation of risks for both parties – the individual has certain financial and social security stability, as losing one customer would not heavily impact the individual’s income and life quality; whereas on the company’s side – expenses can be planned according to business plans and necessity. But not all individuals are today ready to work without strong supervision and assume full liability.

Covid-19 showed that flexibility should be introduced. Moreover a plan on mitigation of risks and business sustainability are not just nice words, it is a must have plan to be updated constantly for the companies to be ready for extraordinary situations. Likewise stability the employees consider they have due to open ended “one master” employment are very volatile, the risks are always out there and nothing should be deemed as for granted.

Nevertheless, pure employment issues are not the only challenges in the Gig economy approach.

Remote and digital employment – the skills for the future

Gig economy idea claims for flexibility and free choice of place to be, which for a traditional society like Latvia is a true challenge. Historically established traditions of frame and control in each aspect are still alive and part of the culture, whereas new generation which was born in years of independence already with their different view is considered as rebels.

Labor Law of Latvia states ten mandatory terms and conditions to be included in each that Employment Agreements:

  • name, surname, ID number/ birth date, address of the employee; name, registration number, address of the employer;
  • starting date of the employment;
  • expected length of the employment (in case the agreement is concluded for certain period of time);
  • place of work and/ or in case employee will be required to perform work duties in different places, this must be clearly indicated;
  • the position employee is employed for indicating also code of the profession according to Classification of Professions established by the State;
  • amount of remuneration agreed and date of payment thereof;
  • contracted work time per day or per week;
  • length of the annual paid leave;
  • notice periods of the Employment Agreement;
  • indication to Collective Agreement and internal procedures and policies of the company applicable to the said employment.

These mandatory aspects must be included in the agreement irrespective of whether they are statutorily fixed or can be changed upon agreement of the parties. Moreover, in case further changes in these terms shall be required the employer is obliged to inform the employee on that with one month prior written notice. Whereas coming into effect of the amendments to the agreement shall be absolutely subject to agreement between the parties or it triggers rights for the employer to unilaterally terminate employment (based though on staff reduction argument). Thus clear statement of where the work place is forms one of the key elements of the employment and changing it is rather inflexible.

But it must be also taken into account that historically the concept of a fixed work place is connected to certain additional and consequential aspects. Namely, performance of work in the work place indicated in the Employment Agreement is solely subject to payment of salary and if applicable – compensation for overtime, as a general rule – not less than in amount of 100% of the hourly or daily salary rate set. Whereas work outside the work place established by the Employment Agreement may be deemed one of two business trip types and statutory rule is to provide additional protection to employees when they have to perform their work outside used place, especially if this is away from home:

  • Business trip A (komandējums) – a trip for a certain period of time based on order of the employer, to another location either inland or abroad to perform work duties or to promote qualification. This business trip is subject to compensation by the employer of daily allowance at least in the statutorily established amount, transportation and luggage expenses, expenses for accommodation, parking expenses, insurance expenses, participations fees at the events and alike;
  • Business trip B (darba brauciens) – work of the employee, if it takes place while travelling in accordance with the concluded Employment Agreement/ job description, inland or abroad, if the work involves regular/ systematic trips and change of location. This business trip is subject to compensation by the employer of slightly less expenses than in case of the business trip A – transportation expenses, expenses for accommodation, parking expenses, insurance expenses, expenses for transportation of luggage and few more.

At the end of the day it is significant for the employer to precisely establish whether this is employment at another place as provides Employment Agreement or one of the business trips, accordingly precisely detecting which business trip type is applied as on this depends the overall amount of expenses to be compensated for the employee. And even more, certain aspects as for instance whether the employee can return to the residence place at the end of the day can decrease the amount of compensation to be paid. Accordingly applying of a fixed place of work may be financial wise more advantageous for the employer than flexibility of location for the employee.

Another challenge of the work outside the office premises is compliance with work and health safety rules. When the work is performed in office premises of the employer it is mandatory obligation of the employer to ensure safe and healthy work conditions for its employees that including air conditions, work place suitable to spend hours in performing duties, safe and suitable tools for work and alike. Likewise the employer is in charge of running trainings for employees in this respect.

Before extraordinary Covid–19 circumstances remote work was present in Latvia; however it was merely optional and applied in exceptional cases. Each case requiring ongoing remote work was true stress to employers, because the only way how to mitigate responsibility of the employer in respect to work safety was to conclude an additional agreement, with the employee probably stating that it has been initiative of the employee to work remotely and employer has agreed to that, thus the liability in respect to the work safety (and health) condition being transferred fully to the employee.

Co-working spaces as a first change in culture had shaken not only the traditional approach of what a work place should be, but also the statutory frame. Due to various forms of employment becoming more and more relevant, including remote work, when the employee works at home or elsewhere outside the company, necessity for adaption of the work safety regulation to current trends became inevitable.
As a result in October 2019 amendments to the Labour Protection Law were adopted.
The new regulation coming into effect on July 1, 2020 finally declares what is a remote work, excluding therefrom work which is related to regular travelling. The new rules also establish obligation for the remote work performer to cooperate and exchange information with the employer in evaluation of work safety risks in the environment the employee is going to perform the work, if such circumstances can endanger or impact safety and health of the employee. The support in evaluation of the work safety must be provided by the employer irrespective of number of locations the employee would decide to perform the work at. And the employer will be responsible for the recordkeeping in respect to such work place evaluations. Nevertheless the part of law in respect to liability has not changed overall – the employer remains responsible for work and health safety at work of the persons employed/ contracted.

It can be already today predicted that practicalities of the newly established approach will cause a lot of tricky and disputable situations. In a culture where employees are not keen to take responsibility, the new regulation will trigger employee claims to finance and ensure working conditions per individual choice and ambitions unless the employers will develop precise internal policies and procedures on conditions and equipment company deems sufficient and appropriate for the particular position in which the employee is employed.

Hence the statutory regulation obviously needs more of development and tests in deployment before Gig economy approach can be deemed as fitting the culture and expectations of the society and aligning the statutory rules.

For performance of the work duties especially information and communications technologies (ICT) are required

And finally – under the Gig economy performance of work remotely would not be possible without proper gadgets – PCs, smartphones, tablets etc.

When it comes to extraordinary circumstances like Covid-19 our very well digitalized society appears to be well skilled mainly in using digital social media, but as far as it concerns doing work, not yet so sophisticated. Lockdown discovered that a lot of inhabitants of Latvia have very poor ICT with limited functionality, low security level and even outdated. When using such equipment for performance of work duties the productivity is under question, cooperation of employees limps, reaching results takes longer time. But even more – data (especially confidential information) of the employer is endangered when poor ICT solutions are used.

If we take a look at digitalization of Latvia, although not much internationally advertised, it is at a high level.
Already today Latvian society has access to:

  • Latvia has one of the fastest internet connections in the world;
  • registration of corporate changes with the Company Register by submitting electronically signed documents (www.ur.gov.lv; www.latvija.lv);
  • complying with tax reporting requirements via electronic tool of the State Revenue Service, providing all communication with the tax authority also electronically (eds.vid.gov.lv);
  • signing majority of documents (public and private) electronically with secure digital signature and a time stamp (granted based on and connected with ID and passport of an individual) issued by LVRTC – one of the leading electronic communication service providers in Latvia (www.eparaksts.lv). This signature is recognized and can be combined with similar electronic signatures of other countries, e.g. Lithuania and Estonia. Even more – since some time mobile version of the secure electronic signature (and time stamp) is available, which means that any documents can be signed also in a smart phone;
  • notaries of Latvia perform their duties and execute documents electronically with secure digital signature and a time stamp;
  • State and majority of municipal authorities are welcoming electronic communication;

and many more electronic solutions.

Irrespective of that the mindset of “paper prevails over other solutions” is still there in society. Attack of Covid-19 literally pushed the society towards digitalization in mindset too and actually understanding that tools and solutions required for remote business handing and employment are already there, now we only need to understand what would be the procedures to correctly implement those in real time and every day, because:

  • the old processes employees and employers are used to, do not work anymore;
  • both parties – employees and employers lack clarity on how to manage work with no stress or at least at proportionate stress level;
  • the remote work requires new skills not only for employees but also for management. How about control over employee work, what are the ways to manage it if all the team is not in one room;
  • no matter how digitally developed is the country each individual is though on different level of development in this respect, and this becomes true challenge when it comes to day-to-day remote work and cooperation;
  • and last but not least – the employers have invested in tools and equipment within on prems concept, whereas remote work needs different type of investment, more developed tools and IT security guarantees.

This means that each company needs an actual transformation plan irrespective of the business it operates in. The digitalization is inevitable, it is a rational optimization of resources used, development of new skills and taking each employee on a whole new level of professional performance – individually and team wise. For companies digitalization increases competitiveness and readiness to unexpected circumstances and sustainability of business operation.

So summarizing all the aspects analyzed during this article, Covid-19 has made people think not only, what is actual value of the employment and how one can concurrently protect employees and its business, but also how much of processes we can transform in an e-approach immediately and where we still need know-how and investment.
Transforming into a Gig economy requires much more than overnight meditation with one thought – this shall pass. It is a new way of living.

On March 31, 2020 the details of emergency measures where shared in a press conference and the scheme was published simultaneously. This memo sets out the main lines of the NOW scheme.

Loss of turnover

Under the NOW scheme, employers can apply for an allowance for labour costs if they expect a loss of turnover of at least 20%. The loss of turnover of at least 20% must occur over a three-month period starting on the first day of the months March, April or May 2020. It must always relate to a consecutive period of three months.

The turnover is compared with 25% of the turnover from January to December 2019.

The loss of turnover is determined at group level. If a group as a whole has a loss of turnover of less than 20%, no compensation will be paid to any individual parts of that group that are still inactive. Net turnover is taken as the net turnover, i.e. the income from the supply of goods and services from the business of the legal entity less discounts and the like and tax levied on the turnover.

Wages and salaries

The employer must pay the wages to the employees in full, but can apply to the UWV (social security insurer for employees) for an allowance for labour costs. On the other hand, the employee must also be fully available to perform work.

The NOW scheme also covers employees with employees with a flexible contract insofar as they continue to be employed and receive wages from the employer during the subsidy period. The wage bill of all employees with a social security wage (virtually all) are eligible for the subsidy. These are, for example, employees with a so-called fictitious employment contract for employee insurance, but not voluntarily insured persons.

Wages up to € 9,538 gross per month are considered, the amount surpassing the same is not considered for the subsidy. Additional charges and costs such as employer contributions and employee contributions to pension and the accrual of holiday allowance are also compensated. A lump-sum surcharge for employer charges of 30% applies.

Advance payment

 The advance payment provided under the NOW is, in principle, based on the wage bill for the January 2020 return period. If there are no wage data for January 2020, the UWV will assume November 2019. If there are no data for this period either, no subsidy can be granted.

If the wage bill for the months March-April-May is lower, the amount of the subsidy will be reduced by 90% of the amount by which the wage bill fell. The settlement is an incentive to keep employees employed as much as possible for the hours they worked before the severe drop in turnover.

Calculation

The amount of the allowance for wage costs depends on the drop in turnover and amounts to a maximum of 90% of the wage bill. For example: If 100% of the turnover is lost, the allowance amounts to 90% of the wage and salary bill of the employer and if 50% of the turnover is lost, the allowance amounts to 45% of the wage and salary bill of the employer.

Extension of the arrangement

It was previously announced that the period of the allowance, which is 3 months, may be extended once for a further period of 3 months. The Cabinet now announces that this extension has not yet been decided; it will be decided before 1 June 2020, so that any second tranche will be in line with the first application period ending on 31 May 2020. In case of extension, further conditions may be added to the scheme.

Prohibition of dismissal

When applying on the grounds of the NOW, the employer undertakes in advance not to apply for dismissal on the grounds of business economics for his employees during the period for which the allowance is received. The employer is therefore expected not to apply to the UWV for permission to terminate an employment contract on the grounds of business economics in the period from 18 March to 31 May 2020 inclusive. The prohibition on dismissal does not apply to dismissal applications submitted to the UWV in the period from 1 March to 17 March 2020.

If a request for dismissal is nevertheless made and this request is not withdrawn (or not withdrawn on time), a correction will be made when the subsidy is determined. When the subsidy is determined, the wages of the employees for whom dismissal has been requested will be determined. This wage is then increased by 50%. This wage plus the 50% increase is deducted from the total wage sum on which the final amount of the subsidy is based.

Submitting the request

The UWV will be charged with processing the application. The applications are expected to be submitted on 6 April next. The first advance payments will be made within 2 to 4 weeks. This advance payment will in any case amount to 80% of the grant.

Questo articolo si propone di illustrare le nuove norme in materia di parità di genere introdotte dal RDL 6/2019 applicabili a tutte le tipologie di imprese (indipendentemente dal numero di dipendenti), ed in particolare alle imprese che occupino almeno 50 dipendenti.

La principale novità in questo senso consiste in un obbligo a carico delle aziende con almeno 50 dipendenti di attuare un Piano che promuova la parità di trattamento, in conformità alle disposizioni degli articoli 45 e seguenti della LOIEMH.

Per quanto riguarda i contenuti e le modalità di attuazione del Piano di Parità nelle aziende, segnaliamo le seguenti novità:

  • I temi ed i contenuti minimi che devono essere inclusi nel singolo Piano di Parità sono indicati in modo esaustivo.
  • E’ introdotta un’analisi della sotto-rappresentazione femminile in azienda quale tema da includere nel Piano.
  • La valutazione che le imprese devono compiere in fase di elaborazione del Piano di Parità deve essere oggetto di negoziazione con il rappresentante legale dei lavoratori.
  • È istituito un Registro dei Piano di Parità delle imprese, nel quale vanno iscritti tutti i Piani di Parità adottato dalle imprese, indipendentemente dal numero di lavoratori occupati.

L’RDL 6/2019 introduce peraltro una nuova formulazione dell’articolo 28 dello Statuto dei Lavoratori, la quale sancisce l’obbligo per le imprese di conformarsi al principio della parità retributiva tra uomini e donne, stabilendo una serie di misure e obblighi a carico delle imprese, al fine di garantire l’effettivo rispetto della parità retributiva.

In particolare, le nuove misure inserite nell’articolo 28 dello Statuto sono le seguenti:

  • Il testo definisce la nozione di “lavoro di pari valore“, al fine di promuovere un criterio unico ed eliminare ogni dubbio al riguardo.
  • Le imprese sono tenute a mantenere un Registro delle Retribuzioni, riportando i valori medi delle retribuzioni, delle componenti retributive supplementari e delle percezioni extra-salariali del proprio personale, differenziando i dati per genere e distribuendoli per gruppi professionali, categorie professionali o posizioni di lavoro di pari valore.
  • Il Registro delle Retribuzioni dovrà essere reso accessibile al rappresentante legale dei lavoratori.
  • Nelle imprese che occupano almeno 50 lavoratori con una retribuzione media relativa ai lavoratori di un genere superiore di almeno il 25% rispetto a quella dell’altro, è necessario inserire nel Registro delle Retribuzioni una motivazione di tale disparità, certificando che essa è dovuta a ragioni diverse dal genere dei lavoratori.

L’inosservanza degli obblighi in materia di parità e, in particolare, di quelli attinenti al Piano di Parità ed alla parità retributiva tra uomini e donne, può comportare l’applicazione di pesanti sanzioni da parte dell’Ispettorato del Lavoro e della “Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social”.

On 28 May 2019 the Dutch Parliament adopted new employment legislation: The Balanced Labour Market Act (‘Wet Arbeidsmarkt in Balans’), hereinafter the WAB. The most important changes are discussed below.

New cumulation ground for dismissal

The legislation introduces a new ground for dismissal. This makes it a bit easier for employers to dismiss employees. Dismissal will also be possible if there is a sum of circumstances, the so-called cumulation ground. Now the employer must fully comply with 1 of the 8 grounds for dismissal. This new ground gives the court the opportunity to combine circumstances. The employee can receive an extra half transitional allowance (on top of the current statutory transitional allowance) if the cumulation ground is used for the dismissal.

Severance: Transitional allowance

The new act arranges that employees will have the right to a transitional allowance immediately from the first start of the employment contract, instead of only after two years.

The accrual of transitional allowance is reduced in case of long-term employment. The accrual for everyone, regardless of the age of the employee, is one third of a monthly salary.

There will be a scheme for small employers to compensate the transitional allowance if they have to end their business due to retirement or illness.

Extending the scope of the chain of employment agreements

The current period after which successive fixed-term employment contracts legally change into an employment contract for an indefinite period is two years. The WAB broadens the succession of temporary contracts. Under the WAB it will still be possible to enter into a maximum of three temporary contracts. The maximum period of fixed-term contracts will be extended to three years. This chain of successive fixed-term employment contracts can be broken by an interruption period of six months.

It is possible to shorten the interruption period between a chain of fixed-term contracts in a Collective Bargaining Agreement from six to three months if there is recurring temporary work that can be done for a maximum of nine months a year.

An exception to the chain provision will be made for temporary workers in primary education who replace employees who became ill.

Call agreement

A new definition is introduced in Article 7: 628a paragraph 9 of the Dutch Civil Code: the ‘call agreement’. In call agreements the number of working hours per period and the salary are not established upfront but can vary depending on for example the amount of work available. Under the WAB an employee must be called by the employer at least four days in advance. If the employer does not follow this regulation, the employee is not obligated to come in for work. Call workers retain the right to wages for the period for which they were called if the work is cancelled less than four days in advance. The employer is obliged to offer the call worker an employment contract after a year for the average number of hours that he has worked in the previous twelve months. In Collective Bargaining Agreements alternative arrangements can be made under certain conditions.

Payrolling

Payroll employees will receive the same legal position and primary and secondary employment conditions as employees who are employed by the employer.

Payroll employees are also entitled to an ‘adequate’ pension scheme.

Unemployment benefit premium differentiation

In order to make employment contracts for an indefinite period of time more attractive for employers, the WAB arranges for an unemployment benefit premium differentiation between permanent and temporary contracts. A lower premium will apply for employment contracts for an indefinite period of time and a higher premium for fixed-term employment contracts.

Commencing date

The intended commencing date of the WAB is 1 January 2020. The right to an adequate pension scheme for payrolling starts on 1 January 2021.

The author of this post is Regine de Wit.

10 practical aspects to consider for an adequate timing

Meanwhile similar legal standards apply in most industrialized countries if an employment relationship shall be terminated; however, in every jurisdiction some specifics still need to be considered. The following ten aspects may be a first general guideline for the termination of an employment contract in Germany, in particular regarding its timing.

  1. In some cases notice needs to be given within a two-week period

In case of gross misconduct an employer may be entitled to terminate an employment relationship forthwith. However, if notice of termination is not served to the employee within two weeks after acknowledgement of the respective facts, this right is forfeited.

  1. Notice has to be given in writing

The notice has to be signed by the legal representative of the employer and delivered to the employee. Neither a transmission by facsimile nor an email with a scanned copy is sufficient. If the representative is not on site, timing may become an essential aspect of the termination process.

  1. Ordinary dismissal may be prohibited by a collective bargaining agreement

Collective bargaining agreements often provide a ban on ordinary dismissal under certain circumstances (e.g. based on the age of the employee). A careful assessment of all applicable collective bargaining agreements before a termination is therefore indispensable.

  1. Insufficient information of the works councils may lead to an invalid termination

The establishment of a works council is not mandatory in Germany. However, if it is established, it needs to be notified and heard before every termination of an employment contract. The notification must contain a sufficient description of the grounds for the termination, otherwise the termination may be deemed invalid. Having been notified, the works council has one week (in some cases: three days) to object. Any termination before such term without consent of the works council would be deemed invalid as well. Timing may therefore become again an essential aspect of the termination process.

  1. General dismissal protection is related to seniority and size of the establishment

General dismissal protection is basically applicable in establishments with more than 10 employees. Exceptions may apply in favour of those employees whose employment relationships commenced already before 1st January 2004. In addition, the respective employee needs to have at least a seniority of six month. If these criteria are met, the termination has to be justified by operational reasons, misconduct or personal incapacity as set out in the Dismissal Protection Act.

  1. Some terminations may need prior permission

Irrespective of the application of the afore mentioned Dismissal Protection Act some kind of terminations (e.g. employees on parental leave) may need a special permission of the works council, the Labour Court or the respective public authority as applicable. These procedures may last from some days up to two years.

  1. There is no general claim for severance payment in case of an unfair dismissal

Aside from those agreed in termination agreements there is no general claim for severance payment in case of an unfair dismissal. In general, the statutory remedy will only be reinstatement and back pay. Only under certain circumstances each party may apply for the termination of the employment relationship and a severance payment in front of the Labour Court. However, in most of the cases parties end up in a voluntary termination agreement.

  1. Non-competes may lead to extensive payments and cannot be withdrawn forthwith unilaterally without cause

A binding covenant to non-compete leads to a compensation payment of at least 50 % of the former salary for every month of its duration. Even in case of a justified termination it may only be terminated with a notice period of one year. However, both parties may agree upon its immediate suspension in a termination agreement.

  1. Any termination agreement has to be in written form as well

Also a termination agreement needs to fulfil the same formal requirements as set out already above under point 2. Again, if the representative is not on site, timing may become an essential aspect of the bargaining process.

  1. The forfeiture clause of a termination agreement may not cover all claims 

Termination agreements often contain general forfeiture clauses at their end, covering also those potential claims which have not been explicitly mentioned or identified by the parties. However, some claims (e.g. pension claims) may not be covered by such a (general) forfeiture clause.

Please note that these ten aspects contain general information only. Further details as well as possible exceptions therefore need to be checked on a case-by-case basis by a professional advisor.

 

Tha author of this post is Alexander Lentz

L’imprenditore che intenda concentrarsi esclusivamente sul proprio core business ha la possibilità di ricorrere ad altri imprenditori, a cui affidare la realizzazione di tutte quelle opere e di quei servizi comunque necessari per la gestione dell’impresa.

Il termine tecnico che si utilizza per definire un tale modus operandi è quello di “esternalizzazione” di parte dell’attività imprenditoriale e, solitamente, l’accordo che regola tale tipologia di collaborazione è un contratto di appalto, vale a dire il contratto con il quale una parte si impegna a compiere un’opera o un servizio a favore di un’altra e verso un corrispettivo in denaro.

Esempio di contratto di appalto d’opera potrebbe essere il contratto con il quale un’impresa edile si obbliga a costruire un palazzo per una società immobiliare; esempio di appalto di servizi potrebbe essere il contratto che si stipula con un’impresa di pulizie per la pulizia del proprio stabile.

L’appalto ha per oggetto una prestazione di “fare” nell’ambito della quale un soggetto, detto appaltatore, si impegna a svolgere un’attività determinata, fornendo ed organizzando i mezzi necessari e gestendo la realizzazione a proprio rischio; è poi necessario che l’attività sia organizzata in forma di impresa e che quindi l’appaltatore sia, esso stesso, un imprenditore.

In Italia lo strumento dell’appalto ha sempre avuto grande diffusione ed utilizzo e da sempre rappresenta lo strumento privilegiato per esternalizzare attività poco remunerative nell’ambito di realtà imprenditoriali complesse: obiettivo di chi ricorre all’appalto è quello di realizzare efficienza in termini di risorse, sia economiche (riduzione dei costi) che materiali (riduzione di personale e delle responsabilità connesse alla sua gestione).

Quanto sopra vale anche per gli imprenditori esteri che gestiscono o decidono di avviare un’attività in Italia: l’appalto rappresenta un ottimo strumento per delegare ad altri soggetti, in loco e con una specifica expertise in materia, la gestione di problematiche complesse quali: l’ottenimento di autorizzazioni pubbliche, l’approvvigionamento di particolari materie prime, il reclutamento sul territorio di risorse umane qualificate.

L’esternalizzazione della attività non è un fenomeno omogeneo e le esigenze che spesso si presentano in concreto sono suscettibili di prestarsi anche a differenti soluzioni, a seconda dell’oggetto della prestazione, della tipologia e delle caratteristiche del committente o della particolare natura degli interessi coinvolti.

Proprio in virtù delle suddette particolarità molto spesso, in luogo del contratto di appalto, l’imprenditore fa ricorso al contratto di subfornitura.

Con il contratto di subfornitura un imprenditore si impegna a effettuare, per conto di una impresa committente, lavorazioni su prodotti semilavorati o su materie prime forniti dalla committente medesima, o si impegna a fornire all’impresa prodotti o servizi destinati ad essere incorporati o comunque ad essere utilizzati nell’ambito dell’attività economica del committente o nella produzione di un bene complesso, in conformità a progetti esecutivi, conoscenze tecniche e tecnologiche, modelli o prototipi forniti dall’impresa committente.

Sintetizzando e forse banalizzando fiorenti dibattiti dottrinali e giurisprudenziali, potremmo dire che molto spesso la differenza tra un appalto di servizi e la “subfornitura” consiste nel fatto che in caso di subfornitura le attività oggetto del contratto vengono svolte su materiali del committente e/o consistono nella realizzazione di beni o servizi funzionali al processo produttivo del committente; in ogni caso, la subfornitura comporta la “dipendenza tecnologica” (ed anche economica) del subfornitore nei confronti del committente.

Proprio il decentramento e la dissociazione che l’esternalizzazione di processi e attività realizza tra il “gestore” dell’attività esternalizzata ed il fruitore finale della stessa, suscita da sempre grande attenzione da parte del legislatore italiano.

Attenzione finalizzata a tutelare soprattutto i dipendenti coinvolti nell’attività esternalizzata in caso di eventi nefasti idonei a privarli di garanzie legali di cui, invece, possono continuare a godere i dipendenti dell’appaltante committente (pensiamo ad esempio alla sofferenza finanziaria dell’appaltatore/subfornitore, o addirittura al suo coinvolgimento in procedure concorsuali, da cui derivi il mancato pagamento di retribuzioni e contributi).

Per tali ragioni, ormai a far data dal 2003, il legislatore italiano ha introdotto un oneroso regime di solidarietà tra committente e appaltatore, nonché con ciascuno degli eventuali subappaltatori che, entro il limite di due anni dalla cessazione dell’appalto, sono obbligati in solido a corrispondere ai lavoratori i trattamenti retributivi, comprese le quote di trattamento di fine rapporto, nonché i contributi previdenziali e i premi assicurativi dovuti in relazione al periodo di esecuzione del contratto di appalto.

Sino al mese di dicembre del 2017 la giurisprudenza di merito era consolidata nel ritenere che il regime della responsabilità solidale fosse applicabile esclusivamente all’appalto di servizi e non alla subfornitura. Circostanza questa che rendeva il ricorso alla subfornitura potenzialmente meno oneroso per il committente.

Con sentenza n. 254 del 6 dicembre scorso, tuttavia, la prospettiva è stata completamente ribaltata dalla Corte Costituzionale che chiamata a pronunciarsi in materia ha stabilito l’applicazione estensiva del principio della responsabilità solidale anche tra committente e subfornitore.

La sentenza parte dall’analisi della nota questione giurisprudenziale circa la configurazione giuridica del contratto di subfornitura e, in particolare, circa l’autonomia o meno del contratto di fornitura rispetto al contratto di appalto.

Senza entrare nel merito del dibattito giurisprudenziale esistente, la Corte Costituzionale sostiene che, al di là dell’orientamento seguito quanto all’assimilazione o meno della subfornitura al contratto di appalto, è possibile operare l’estensione della responsabilità del committente/appaltatore ai crediti di lavoro dei dipendenti del subfornitore.

Ciò in quanto l’introduzione della norma sulla responsabilità solidale in ipotesi di appalto, non può giustificare l’esclusione della medesima garanzia nei confronti dei dipendenti del subfornitore, atteso che la tutela del soggetto che assicura un’attività lavorativa indiretta non può non estendersi a tutti i livelli di decentramento.

Sulla base di tali considerazioni, dunque, il principio della responsabilità solidale va correttamente interpretato nel senso che il committente/appaltatore è obbligato in solido (anche) con il subfornitore, relativamente ai crediti lavorativi, contributivi e assicurativi dei dipendenti di questi, al pari quindi di quanto lo è verso i dipendenti del subappaltatore.

In sostanza il committente risponde direttamente, salvo successiva rivalsa, per le rivendicazioni economiche avanzate dai dipendenti dell’appaltatore, del subappaltatore e del subfornitore e di tutti i lavoratori che dovessero essere stati utilizzati nell’attività esternalizzata in relazione a: i) crediti retributivi maturati durante il periodo di correlazione tra committente ed impresa che ha eseguito i lavori, ivi compresi, “pro – quota”, quelli relativi al trattamento di fine rapporto; e ii) contributi previdenziali e premi assicurativi dovuti per il periodo di esecuzione della prestazione.

Il lavoratore può chiedere direttamente al committente il pagamento di quanto maturato nei confronti del proprio datore. Il committente, chiamato in giudizio, non può mai chiedere l’escussione del coobbligato in solido: deve pagare salva l’azione di regresso.

Il committente quindi, nonostante l’esigenza iniziale fosse quella di fare efficienza e ridurre costi, può trovarsi esposto ad un rischio economico molto maggiore rispetto al costo risparmiato, soprattutto se le rivendicazioni economiche riguardano situazioni non controllabili a priori: facciamo riferimento ad esempio, all’eventuale personale utilizzato “in maniera irregolare” dall’appaltatore/subfornitore, oppure alle rivendicazioni connesse allo svolgimento di mansioni superiori, od anche alla richiesta di lavoro straordinario al di fuori dei parametri di legge.

Esistono naturalmente sistemi e meccanismi idonei a contenere il rischio o, comunque, idonei a garantire al committente maggiore controllo sul corretto funzionamento della filiera esternalizzata.

Tra questi, ad esempio, alla possibilità di prevedere contrattualmente strumenti di tutela economica quali fideiussioni e manleve.

Ma esiste anche la possibilità di implementare, sempre nel contratto, un adeguato sistema di controllo sulla corretta gestione del personale nonché sull’erogazione di retribuzioni, contributi e premi assicurativi.

Alla luce di quanto sopra, concludiamo individuando nella figura del consulente esperto in materia di diritto del lavoro il miglior supporto per l’imprenditore che intenda avventurarsi in maniera consapevole e sicura in un processo di esternalizzazione.

L’autore di questo articolo è Domenica Cotroneo.

Il distacco transnazionale di lavoratori è quel meccanismo attraverso cui le imprese di uno Stato membro prestano servizi in un altro Stato membro inviando direttamente i propri dipendenti nel territorio di quest’ultimo.

Nel corso degli ultimi 20 anni tale fenomeno è cresciuto in maniera rilevante a livello europeo, soprattutto a seguito dell’ingresso nell’Unione dei Paesi dell’est, che avevano – e in parte continuano ad avere – un costo del lavoro sensibilmente più basso di quello degli altri Stati membri.

Il fenomeno è stato quindi oggetto di diversi interventi del legislatore europeo e di quelli nazionali, nonché di alcune rilevanti decisioni della Corte di Giustizia. Esso si pone infatti in relazione con diversi diritti fondamentali riconosciuti dall’Unione e richiede un equilibrato bilanciamento degli interessi in gioco.

Occorre garantire le libertà di circolazione di lavoratori,  capitali e merci e, in particolare, la libera prestazione dei servizi (art. 56 TFUE), salvaguardando al contempo la leale concorrenza tra le imprese e la tutela dei lavoratori. Il legislatore comunitario intervenne sul tema con la Direttiva 96/71/CE (attuata in Italia col D. Lgs. 72/2000), poi integrata dalla Direttiva 2014/67/UE (attuata in Italia col D. Lgs. 136/2016).

Il legislatore europeo e quello nazionale perseguono con le citate disposizioni due principali obiettivi:

– contrastare i distacchi fittizi attraverso società di comodo, le cosiddette letterbox company, garantendo equilibrio concorrenziale a livello europeo;

– garantire uniformità di trattamento e di tutela ai lavoratori coinvolti, impedendo fenomeni di ‘dumping sociale’.

Per raggiungere questi obiettivi viene rafforzato il sistema di cooperazione amministrativa tra le diverse autorità ispettive nazionali,  vengono individuati criteri predefiniti per la valutazione dell’autenticità del distacco e vengono stabilite condizioni minime da garantire ai lavoratori.

Per valutare l’autenticità del distacco, l’art. 4 della direttiva 2014/67/UE (recepito nell’art. 3 della legge italiana) indica alcune caratteristiche da prendere in considerazione con riferimento alle imprese coinvolte e ai lavoratori distaccati.

Per le imprese sono considerati rilevanti i seguenti elementi:

  1. a) il luogo in cui l’impresa ha la propria sede legale e amministrativa, utilizza uffici, paga imposte e contributi previdenziali ed è iscritta alla camera di commercio;
  2. b) il luogo in cui i lavoratori sono assunti e quello da cui sono distaccati;
  3. c) la legge applicabile ai contratti stipulati dall’impresa con i suoi lavoratori e con i suoi clienti;
  4. d) il luogo in cui l’impresa esercita la propria attività economica principale e in cui è occupato il suo personale amministrativo;
  5. e) il numero dei contratti eseguiti o l’ammontare del fatturato realizzato dall’impresa nello Stato membro di stabilimento, tenendo conto della specificità delle piccole e medie imprese e di quelle di nuova costituzione.

Per i lavoratori vengono prese in considerazione queste circostanze:

  1. a) lo svolgimento dell’attività lavorativa per un periodo di tempo limitato in un altro Stato membro;
  2. b) la data di inizio del distacco;
  3. c) l’esercizio abituale dell’attività lavorativa nello Stato di provenienza;
  4. d) il ritorno a prestare attività lavorativa nello Stato cui è stato distaccato;
  5. e) la natura e le modalità di svolgimento dell’attività;
  6. f) il rimborso da parte del datore di lavoro distaccante delle spese di viaggio, vitto o alloggio  e le modalità di pagamento;
  7. g) eventuali periodi precedenti in cui la medesima attività è stata svolta dallo stesso o da un altro lavoratore distaccato.

Tutte queste circostanze devono essere considerate nel loro complesso, nessuna è di per sé decisiva e spetta alle autorità nazionali la valutazione finale dell’autenticità o meno del distacco.

L’eventuale accertamento di un distacco fittizio determina rilevanti sanzioni amministrative a carico sia dell’impresa distaccante che di quella utilizzatrice, nonché la loro corresponsabilità per i crediti dei lavoratori.

Il legislatore italiano ha inoltre rafforzato tale previsione: in simmetria con quanto previsto per i casi di intermediazione illecita di mano d’opera, ha infatti stabilito che, se il distacco non risulta autentico, “il lavoratore è considerato a tutti gli effetti alle dipendenze del soggetto che ne ha utilizzato la prestazione” (art. 3 legge italiana).

Ai fini della tutela dei lavoratori e dell’equilibrio concorrenziale, l’art. 3 della direttiva 96/71/CE (art. 4 della legge italiana) stabilisce che, qualunque sia la legislazione applicabile al rapporto di lavoro, gli Stati membri devono far sì che ai lavoratori distaccati sul loro territorio siano garantite, per il periodo del distacco, condizioni di lavoro analoghe a quelle dei lavoratori nazionali. In particolare, i lavoratori distaccati devono godere di un trattamento equivalente in relazione a:

– periodi massimi di lavoro e minimi di riposo;

– durata minima delle ferie annuali retribuite;

– tariffe minime salariali;

– sicurezza e salute sul lavoro;

– tutela per lavoratrici madri, bambini e giovani;

– parità di trattamento uomo/donna e principi di non discriminazione.

Dal punto di vista pratico, l’aspetto di più complessa valutazione riguarda le tariffe minime salariali. Nei diversi paesi dell’Unione esse sono infatti definite in maniera diversa, da fonti diverse (legge/fonti amministrative/contratti collettivi) e sono composte da molte voci, non sempre sovrapponibili.

D’altro canto, gli aspetti economici sono determinanti per imprese e lavoratori per valutare l’opportunità e la convenienza del distacco.

Proprio per queste ragioni, la Corte di Giustizia ha chiarito che il confronto tra le diverse tariffe nazionali deve essere condotto confrontando l’importo complessivo e non le singole voci salariali. La Corte ha inoltre precisato che il confronto deve essere limitato alle voci retributive in senso stretto, cioè in diretta relazione con la prestazione, escludendo per esempio i premi supplementari. Infine la giurisprudenza comunitaria ha chiarito che le voci retributive da prendere in considerazione devono essere accessibili e chiare per il datore di lavoro distaccante.

Da ultimo le disposizioni europee impongono agli Stati membri di consentire ai lavoratori distaccati sul loro territorio l’accesso agli strumenti di tutela, anche giudiziaria, predisposti per i lavoratori nazionali.

A questo fine, in Italia si è esplicitamente prevista la facoltà, per i lavoratori distaccati, di agire sia in sede amministrativa che giudiziale (art. 5 legge italiana).

In Spagna il licenziamento viene classificato individuale o collettivo, a seconda del numero di lavoratori assoggettati a tale misura.

L’articolo 51 dello Statuto dei Lavoratori considera “licenziamento collettivo” l’estinzione del rapporto di lavoro causata da motivazioni economiche, tecniche, organizzative o di produzione quando, nel periodo di novanta giorni, coinvolga: (i) almeno dieci lavoratori di un’impresa con meno di 100 dipendenti; (ii) il dieci per cento dei lavoratori in una impresa che abbia tra cento e trecento dipendenti; (iii) trenta lavoratori nelle imprese con più di trecento dipendenti.

Il licenziamento potrà essere impugnato in sede giudiziale, entro 20 giorni lavorativi e potrà essere dichiarato legittimo (procedente), illegittimo (improcedente) o nullo.

Il licenziamento si considera legittimo quando è confermato l’inadempimento da parte del lavoratore contestato dall’imprenditore nella comunicazione del licenziamento e sono stati soddisfatti i requisiti formali, quali (i) la comunicazione per iscritto al lavoratore; (ii) una sufficiente descrizione dei fatti che hanno determinato il licenziamento e (iii) l’indicazione della data a partire della quale il licenziamento sarà efficace.

Sarà dichiarato illegittimo il licenziamento privo dei requisiti citati nel paragrafo precedente.

Il licenziamento è nullo nei seguenti casi: (i) violazione dei diritti fondamentali o libertà pubblica; (ii) il lavoratore è una vittima di violenza di genere; (iii) salvo che si dimostri la giusta causa, nei casi di: lavoratrici incinte, con permesso di maternità, paternità o allattamento, o con riduzione della giornata lavorativa per curare un minore di dodici anni o una persona con una incapacità fisica, psichica o sensoriale.

Nel caso in cui il licenziamento sia dichiarato illegittimo, l’imprenditore entro cinque giorni dovrà scegliere se reintegrare il lavoratore nel posto di lavoro (e pagargli le mensilità trascorse tra il licenziamento e la notificazione della sentenza, i cosiddetti salarios de tramitación) oppure pagargli l’indennità, il cui importo dipende dalla durata del rapporto, come si analizzerà di seguito. Nel caso in cui il lavoratore licenziato sia un rappresentante sindacale, la scelta tra le due opzioni spetterà al lavoratore e non all’imprenditore.

Se il licenziamento è dichiarato nullo, l’imprenditore avrà l’obbligo di reintegrare il lavoratore nel posto di lavoro e potrà essere condannato al risarcimento dei danni assieme al pagamento delle mensilità trascorse tra il licenziamento e la notifica della sentenza.

Come accennato in precedenza, l’indennità dovuta al lavoratore (alternativa al reintegro per i licenziamenti illegittimi) dipende dal momento in cui è iniziato il rapporto di lavoro.

L’indennità da pagare nel caso del licenziamento di un lavoratore assunto dopo il 12 febbraio 2012, sarà pari a 33 giorni di retribuzione per ogni anno lavorato.

Nel caso in cui il lavoratore licenziato sia stato assunto prima del 12 febbraio 2012, l’indennità verrà calcolata come segue:

  • per il periodo trascorso tra la firma del contratto e il 12 febbraio 2012, l’indennità è pari a 45 giorni di retribuzione per ogni anno di rapporto;
  • sarà pari a 33 giorni di retribuzione per ogni anno lavorato dopo il 12 febbraio 2012.

In ogni caso l’indennità non potrà ammontare a più di 720 giorni di retribuzione, salvo il caso in cui, dal calcolo dell’indennità del periodo precedente il 12 febbraio 2012, risultasse un numero di giorni superiore a 720, nel quale l’indennità non potrà essere superiore a quarantadue mensilità.

Inoltre è importante ricordare che l’indennità in caso di licenziamento è esente da qualunque imposta fino a 180.000 euro. Per la cifra superiore, la tassazione sarà parificata ai redditi di lavoro, con una riduzione del 30% nel caso di rapporto di lavoro terminato da almeno due anni.

Kai Guldemond

Aree di attività

  • Contratti
  • Diritto societario
  • Commercio internazionale
  • M&A
  • Private Equity
Contatta Kai
Latvia - Legalmondo

Latvia – Establishing a company
  • Diritto societario
  • Lettonia

Scrivi a Kai





    Leggi la privacy policy di Legalmondo.
    Questo sito è protetto da reCAPTCHA e si applicano le Norme sulla privacy e i Termini di servizio di Google.

    Spagna – Nuove norme per le imprese in materia di parità di genere

    27 Luglio 2019

    • Spagna
    • Lavoro

    Today during Covid–19 circumstances Gig economy approach has become more necessity rather than theoretical possibility. But still transformation of Latvian business and employment market does not run so smooth. Why so?

    At the end of year 2019 the State Labour Inspectorate of Latvia in cooperation with private partners released results of a research on new forms of employment presence and potential in Latvia (http://www.vdi.gov.lv/files/jnf_gala_zinojums.pdf). The results of this research as well of other international researches are rather controversial as do not conform to the real situation in the country.

    Although the aforementioned researches claim that employers in Latvia are supporters of old-style employment and are not willing to change the practice, in fact the laws of Latvia in effect do not provide flexibility on the approach of employment.

    Covid-19 has badly hit a lot of economies, and actually highlighted the largest challenges – employers to save their business would like to pay less, whereas employees need flexibility as they are required to work remotely and combine their private and work lives.

    In this article an analysis of how general conditions of employment applicable today correspond to frame of main five aspects of a Gig economy will be provided.

    Employment “one to one” or “one to many”

    Gig economy considers that traditional employment has no longer place in our world. The employment should be available among one employer and many employees, many employers and many employees or one employee and many employers, thus employment being in each contractual relations part time, nevertheless all employees are jointly and severally liable for the result of work.

    Labour Law of Latvia keeps traditions of employment – one employer and one employee. Likewise part time work is permitted just in statutorily listed cases like to replace an employee in long term absence, in case of increase of the workload in the company, in emergency cases, and in certain areas like culture, sports, banking, education and diplomacy. Moreover, length of a fixed-term employment may not exceed 5 years in total (including extensions). As a result of this majority of employments are open ended.

    In order to solve the burden imposed by law, employers often use potential employees as external service providers based on a Service Agreement in this manner imitating self employment. Self employment for a payor is less expensive tax wise, which led authorities to introduce limiting measures for flexibility of entrepreneurs.
    In the Law on Personal Income Tax criteria of employment per se where introduced. Namely, an agreement with an individual can be deemed as contractual relationships subject to payment of salary and accordingly payroll if at least one of the following conditions has been ascertained:

    • the individual has economic dependence upon the party to whom he/she provides services;
    • lack of assumption of financial risks in the fulfilment of work or no liability in respect to lost debtor debts;
    • integration of the contracted individual into the company to which services are provided (e.g. existence of a work or recreational areas, a duty to observe internal rules of the company);
    • availability of holidays and paid leave in accordance with schedules of the company;
    • work shall be performed under management or control of the other contracting party – the customer, and the individual is deprived of possibility to involve in the service provision his/ her personnel or sub-contractors; or
    • the individual is not owner of the assets used while rendering services to the company.

    Respectively in case the State Revenue Service of Latvia (tax authority) detects presence of the criteria listed, it shall be entitled to reclassify the contractual relations of the seemingly independent parties into employment relations as a result of which remuneration paid to the individual would be subject to full payroll as any other salary gained on basis of Employment Agreement. The tax expense threshold the companies playing with by out of box employment results in significant difference:

    • payroll in case of employment – progressive personal income tax between 20% to 23% depending on the income (at certain level the annual income of an individual may though be subject to maximum rate of the personal income tax – 31.4%); social security contributions of 35.09%; majority of these expenses being on the employer’s shoulders; whereas
    • taxes applicable in case of self-employment – progressive personal income tax between 20% to 31.4% depending on the income; social security contributions of 32.15%, basis of these compulsory contributions being a freely chosen income; in this case if the contracted individual is a registered economic operator – the taxes are all his/her liability, whereas if the individual has not registered with tax authorities independent economic activity, the taxes shall be withheld at the moment of disbursement of the remuneration and paid into the State budget by the company contracting the individual.

    In circumstances of Covid–19 the traditional employment scenarios chosen by entrepreneurs due to rather strict statutory rules have heavily impacted operation of businesses as employers had to either dismiss their employees or let them in idleness with crisis management allowance established by the State as support during Covid–19.

    The outcome showed that applying of different type of “employment” structures, like contracting specialists on the need to basis or crowdsourcing of employees among numerous employers could have facilitated challenges the employers face today in many ways – provide availability of different specialists for the project/ time period required, limit expenses in respect to the employees whom the companies were forced to let in idleness, and alike, all of this still keeping the business running.

    Employment volatility as new formula for flexibility

    As described earlier, present requirements of the Labour Law of Latvia require employment relationships to be based on clear and sustainable rules thus ensuring predictable and long term support to the employees, both in terms of employment and social security.
    The strict approach is even more secured by strict statutory conditions and notice periods under which an employee can be dismissed:

    With a notice of immediate effect:

    • while performing work the employee has acted unlawfully and therefore has lost trust of the employer;
    • while performing the work employee is in a state of intoxication (e.g. alcohol, drugs, other); or
    • the employee is unable to perform the contracted work due to a state of health, and this is confirmed by a medical opinion;

    With a 10 days notice:

    • in case employee has without justifiable reason materially violated the contracted work order;
    • while performing the work the employee has acted contrary to good morals, and such action is incompatible with the continuation of the employment;
    • the employee has grossly violated work safety rules and endangered safety and health of other persons; or
    • due to temporary incapacity of the employee for work for more than 6 and up to 12 months;

    With a one month notice:

    • if the employee is in lack of sufficient professional skills to perform the contracted work;
    • an employee previously employed in the particular position has been reinstated to work;
    • in case of staff redundancy (presuming that employer will not hire immediately new employee in same position); or
    • in case the employer is being liquidated.

    Having seen the list of statutory conditions one would definitely agree that only few circumstances are of a regular character, meaning can be actually applied, whereas the rest are seldom met. Sure there is also available an exception out of this strongly established frame – to terminate employment without any specific reason if the employee and employer can reach a mutual agreement. However that may be a challenge – employees are not obliged to participate in negotiations with employers and can simply walk away.

    So how much of volatility and flexibility can be reached in such strongly fixed statutory frame?
    Practically not much.

    Accordingly under Covid–19 circumstances companies have applied staff redundancy condition more than ever, which may not have been necessary if employment structures would be more flexible. Part of employees today let in idleness have started to look for new job even before the actual dismissal, because perception of stability and predictability is the driving force. This actually showing that although employment of a periodical character would not provide long term income and social security, with this approach the employees of Latvia would have been more used and resistant to fast changing circumstances and periods of actual idleness (meaning also – had some savings).

    It appears that development of economy and business approaches runs on a speed of light, whereas statutory regulation does not manage to follow in those footsteps. The question is though do we need today law and regulation for each detail, if in practice changes come into our lives so fast. Maybe a better solution would be regulation on general principles and practically providing field of different approaches and solutions which would fit more each business segment and keep economy running also in such extraordinary circumstances as Covid-19.

    A close cooperation among numerous employers

    The Gig economy concept provides for presence of different types of cooperation among employers and employees, including crowdsourcing of personnel, sharing of working spaces, liaising business operations and sharing liability in respect to work performed.

    Under present requirements of employment and tax laws of Latvia having shared workforce is rather complicated. The statutory restrictions keep accountability of employers at a very high level thus at the end of the day the approach of traditional employment – “one employer and one employee” – on Latvian market appears to be the easiest. Likewise the strict statutory rules have developed certain culture also on the employee side – “I have one master” seems the most correct and secure way and any other solutions are simply out of discussion.

    As an example, it took years for the Latvian market to admit that employees can be also leased out. Due to long term difficulties with practical applicability of this concept and contractual split of liabilities between lessor and lessee in respect to the employee (being those days at full discretion of the contractual parties), not always being favourable for the employee, in year 2011 changes to the Labour Law were introduced. The amendments established precise definition on what a lease of employees is, the scope of liability and split of duties among the parties resulting therefrom. However not without creating new burdens.

    The statutory protection level of employees on the Latvian market has always been very high and same became applicable in case of lease of workforce. No doubt employees have to be protected; however employee lease is a slightly different way of employment and therefore the regulation in place is still not always compatible with differentiation of employment schemes possible. Last but not least, another aspect complicating applicability of lease of employees is that lease of workforce is set as licensable operation. The procedure to obtain license is complicate enough and involves preparation of paper loads, moreover under statutory requirements a license must be obtained even if the employees are leased between related companies. Thus benefits of this employment structure are certainly disputable.

    Crowdsourcing of employees is the next step; however theoretically possible already today. Individuals could become self employed specialists and enter into contracts with different companies, thus avoiding of the risk under Law on Personal Income Tax (described in this article earlier) to be recognized as employee of any of these companies provided of course that the individual assumes certain financial risks and does job with his/her own tools in majority. It can be considered also as mitigation of risks for both parties – the individual has certain financial and social security stability, as losing one customer would not heavily impact the individual’s income and life quality; whereas on the company’s side – expenses can be planned according to business plans and necessity. But not all individuals are today ready to work without strong supervision and assume full liability.

    Covid-19 showed that flexibility should be introduced. Moreover a plan on mitigation of risks and business sustainability are not just nice words, it is a must have plan to be updated constantly for the companies to be ready for extraordinary situations. Likewise stability the employees consider they have due to open ended “one master” employment are very volatile, the risks are always out there and nothing should be deemed as for granted.

    Nevertheless, pure employment issues are not the only challenges in the Gig economy approach.

    Remote and digital employment – the skills for the future

    Gig economy idea claims for flexibility and free choice of place to be, which for a traditional society like Latvia is a true challenge. Historically established traditions of frame and control in each aspect are still alive and part of the culture, whereas new generation which was born in years of independence already with their different view is considered as rebels.

    Labor Law of Latvia states ten mandatory terms and conditions to be included in each that Employment Agreements:

    • name, surname, ID number/ birth date, address of the employee; name, registration number, address of the employer;
    • starting date of the employment;
    • expected length of the employment (in case the agreement is concluded for certain period of time);
    • place of work and/ or in case employee will be required to perform work duties in different places, this must be clearly indicated;
    • the position employee is employed for indicating also code of the profession according to Classification of Professions established by the State;
    • amount of remuneration agreed and date of payment thereof;
    • contracted work time per day or per week;
    • length of the annual paid leave;
    • notice periods of the Employment Agreement;
    • indication to Collective Agreement and internal procedures and policies of the company applicable to the said employment.

    These mandatory aspects must be included in the agreement irrespective of whether they are statutorily fixed or can be changed upon agreement of the parties. Moreover, in case further changes in these terms shall be required the employer is obliged to inform the employee on that with one month prior written notice. Whereas coming into effect of the amendments to the agreement shall be absolutely subject to agreement between the parties or it triggers rights for the employer to unilaterally terminate employment (based though on staff reduction argument). Thus clear statement of where the work place is forms one of the key elements of the employment and changing it is rather inflexible.

    But it must be also taken into account that historically the concept of a fixed work place is connected to certain additional and consequential aspects. Namely, performance of work in the work place indicated in the Employment Agreement is solely subject to payment of salary and if applicable – compensation for overtime, as a general rule – not less than in amount of 100% of the hourly or daily salary rate set. Whereas work outside the work place established by the Employment Agreement may be deemed one of two business trip types and statutory rule is to provide additional protection to employees when they have to perform their work outside used place, especially if this is away from home:

    • Business trip A (komandējums) – a trip for a certain period of time based on order of the employer, to another location either inland or abroad to perform work duties or to promote qualification. This business trip is subject to compensation by the employer of daily allowance at least in the statutorily established amount, transportation and luggage expenses, expenses for accommodation, parking expenses, insurance expenses, participations fees at the events and alike;
    • Business trip B (darba brauciens) – work of the employee, if it takes place while travelling in accordance with the concluded Employment Agreement/ job description, inland or abroad, if the work involves regular/ systematic trips and change of location. This business trip is subject to compensation by the employer of slightly less expenses than in case of the business trip A – transportation expenses, expenses for accommodation, parking expenses, insurance expenses, expenses for transportation of luggage and few more.

    At the end of the day it is significant for the employer to precisely establish whether this is employment at another place as provides Employment Agreement or one of the business trips, accordingly precisely detecting which business trip type is applied as on this depends the overall amount of expenses to be compensated for the employee. And even more, certain aspects as for instance whether the employee can return to the residence place at the end of the day can decrease the amount of compensation to be paid. Accordingly applying of a fixed place of work may be financial wise more advantageous for the employer than flexibility of location for the employee.

    Another challenge of the work outside the office premises is compliance with work and health safety rules. When the work is performed in office premises of the employer it is mandatory obligation of the employer to ensure safe and healthy work conditions for its employees that including air conditions, work place suitable to spend hours in performing duties, safe and suitable tools for work and alike. Likewise the employer is in charge of running trainings for employees in this respect.

    Before extraordinary Covid–19 circumstances remote work was present in Latvia; however it was merely optional and applied in exceptional cases. Each case requiring ongoing remote work was true stress to employers, because the only way how to mitigate responsibility of the employer in respect to work safety was to conclude an additional agreement, with the employee probably stating that it has been initiative of the employee to work remotely and employer has agreed to that, thus the liability in respect to the work safety (and health) condition being transferred fully to the employee.

    Co-working spaces as a first change in culture had shaken not only the traditional approach of what a work place should be, but also the statutory frame. Due to various forms of employment becoming more and more relevant, including remote work, when the employee works at home or elsewhere outside the company, necessity for adaption of the work safety regulation to current trends became inevitable.
    As a result in October 2019 amendments to the Labour Protection Law were adopted.
    The new regulation coming into effect on July 1, 2020 finally declares what is a remote work, excluding therefrom work which is related to regular travelling. The new rules also establish obligation for the remote work performer to cooperate and exchange information with the employer in evaluation of work safety risks in the environment the employee is going to perform the work, if such circumstances can endanger or impact safety and health of the employee. The support in evaluation of the work safety must be provided by the employer irrespective of number of locations the employee would decide to perform the work at. And the employer will be responsible for the recordkeeping in respect to such work place evaluations. Nevertheless the part of law in respect to liability has not changed overall – the employer remains responsible for work and health safety at work of the persons employed/ contracted.

    It can be already today predicted that practicalities of the newly established approach will cause a lot of tricky and disputable situations. In a culture where employees are not keen to take responsibility, the new regulation will trigger employee claims to finance and ensure working conditions per individual choice and ambitions unless the employers will develop precise internal policies and procedures on conditions and equipment company deems sufficient and appropriate for the particular position in which the employee is employed.

    Hence the statutory regulation obviously needs more of development and tests in deployment before Gig economy approach can be deemed as fitting the culture and expectations of the society and aligning the statutory rules.

    For performance of the work duties especially information and communications technologies (ICT) are required

    And finally – under the Gig economy performance of work remotely would not be possible without proper gadgets – PCs, smartphones, tablets etc.

    When it comes to extraordinary circumstances like Covid-19 our very well digitalized society appears to be well skilled mainly in using digital social media, but as far as it concerns doing work, not yet so sophisticated. Lockdown discovered that a lot of inhabitants of Latvia have very poor ICT with limited functionality, low security level and even outdated. When using such equipment for performance of work duties the productivity is under question, cooperation of employees limps, reaching results takes longer time. But even more – data (especially confidential information) of the employer is endangered when poor ICT solutions are used.

    If we take a look at digitalization of Latvia, although not much internationally advertised, it is at a high level.
    Already today Latvian society has access to:

    • Latvia has one of the fastest internet connections in the world;
    • registration of corporate changes with the Company Register by submitting electronically signed documents (www.ur.gov.lv; www.latvija.lv);
    • complying with tax reporting requirements via electronic tool of the State Revenue Service, providing all communication with the tax authority also electronically (eds.vid.gov.lv);
    • signing majority of documents (public and private) electronically with secure digital signature and a time stamp (granted based on and connected with ID and passport of an individual) issued by LVRTC – one of the leading electronic communication service providers in Latvia (www.eparaksts.lv). This signature is recognized and can be combined with similar electronic signatures of other countries, e.g. Lithuania and Estonia. Even more – since some time mobile version of the secure electronic signature (and time stamp) is available, which means that any documents can be signed also in a smart phone;
    • notaries of Latvia perform their duties and execute documents electronically with secure digital signature and a time stamp;
    • State and majority of municipal authorities are welcoming electronic communication;

    and many more electronic solutions.

    Irrespective of that the mindset of “paper prevails over other solutions” is still there in society. Attack of Covid-19 literally pushed the society towards digitalization in mindset too and actually understanding that tools and solutions required for remote business handing and employment are already there, now we only need to understand what would be the procedures to correctly implement those in real time and every day, because:

    • the old processes employees and employers are used to, do not work anymore;
    • both parties – employees and employers lack clarity on how to manage work with no stress or at least at proportionate stress level;
    • the remote work requires new skills not only for employees but also for management. How about control over employee work, what are the ways to manage it if all the team is not in one room;
    • no matter how digitally developed is the country each individual is though on different level of development in this respect, and this becomes true challenge when it comes to day-to-day remote work and cooperation;
    • and last but not least – the employers have invested in tools and equipment within on prems concept, whereas remote work needs different type of investment, more developed tools and IT security guarantees.

    This means that each company needs an actual transformation plan irrespective of the business it operates in. The digitalization is inevitable, it is a rational optimization of resources used, development of new skills and taking each employee on a whole new level of professional performance – individually and team wise. For companies digitalization increases competitiveness and readiness to unexpected circumstances and sustainability of business operation.

    So summarizing all the aspects analyzed during this article, Covid-19 has made people think not only, what is actual value of the employment and how one can concurrently protect employees and its business, but also how much of processes we can transform in an e-approach immediately and where we still need know-how and investment.
    Transforming into a Gig economy requires much more than overnight meditation with one thought – this shall pass. It is a new way of living.

    On March 31, 2020 the details of emergency measures where shared in a press conference and the scheme was published simultaneously. This memo sets out the main lines of the NOW scheme.

    Loss of turnover

    Under the NOW scheme, employers can apply for an allowance for labour costs if they expect a loss of turnover of at least 20%. The loss of turnover of at least 20% must occur over a three-month period starting on the first day of the months March, April or May 2020. It must always relate to a consecutive period of three months.

    The turnover is compared with 25% of the turnover from January to December 2019.

    The loss of turnover is determined at group level. If a group as a whole has a loss of turnover of less than 20%, no compensation will be paid to any individual parts of that group that are still inactive. Net turnover is taken as the net turnover, i.e. the income from the supply of goods and services from the business of the legal entity less discounts and the like and tax levied on the turnover.

    Wages and salaries

    The employer must pay the wages to the employees in full, but can apply to the UWV (social security insurer for employees) for an allowance for labour costs. On the other hand, the employee must also be fully available to perform work.

    The NOW scheme also covers employees with employees with a flexible contract insofar as they continue to be employed and receive wages from the employer during the subsidy period. The wage bill of all employees with a social security wage (virtually all) are eligible for the subsidy. These are, for example, employees with a so-called fictitious employment contract for employee insurance, but not voluntarily insured persons.

    Wages up to € 9,538 gross per month are considered, the amount surpassing the same is not considered for the subsidy. Additional charges and costs such as employer contributions and employee contributions to pension and the accrual of holiday allowance are also compensated. A lump-sum surcharge for employer charges of 30% applies.

    Advance payment

     The advance payment provided under the NOW is, in principle, based on the wage bill for the January 2020 return period. If there are no wage data for January 2020, the UWV will assume November 2019. If there are no data for this period either, no subsidy can be granted.

    If the wage bill for the months March-April-May is lower, the amount of the subsidy will be reduced by 90% of the amount by which the wage bill fell. The settlement is an incentive to keep employees employed as much as possible for the hours they worked before the severe drop in turnover.

    Calculation

    The amount of the allowance for wage costs depends on the drop in turnover and amounts to a maximum of 90% of the wage bill. For example: If 100% of the turnover is lost, the allowance amounts to 90% of the wage and salary bill of the employer and if 50% of the turnover is lost, the allowance amounts to 45% of the wage and salary bill of the employer.

    Extension of the arrangement

    It was previously announced that the period of the allowance, which is 3 months, may be extended once for a further period of 3 months. The Cabinet now announces that this extension has not yet been decided; it will be decided before 1 June 2020, so that any second tranche will be in line with the first application period ending on 31 May 2020. In case of extension, further conditions may be added to the scheme.

    Prohibition of dismissal

    When applying on the grounds of the NOW, the employer undertakes in advance not to apply for dismissal on the grounds of business economics for his employees during the period for which the allowance is received. The employer is therefore expected not to apply to the UWV for permission to terminate an employment contract on the grounds of business economics in the period from 18 March to 31 May 2020 inclusive. The prohibition on dismissal does not apply to dismissal applications submitted to the UWV in the period from 1 March to 17 March 2020.

    If a request for dismissal is nevertheless made and this request is not withdrawn (or not withdrawn on time), a correction will be made when the subsidy is determined. When the subsidy is determined, the wages of the employees for whom dismissal has been requested will be determined. This wage is then increased by 50%. This wage plus the 50% increase is deducted from the total wage sum on which the final amount of the subsidy is based.

    Submitting the request

    The UWV will be charged with processing the application. The applications are expected to be submitted on 6 April next. The first advance payments will be made within 2 to 4 weeks. This advance payment will in any case amount to 80% of the grant.

    Questo articolo si propone di illustrare le nuove norme in materia di parità di genere introdotte dal RDL 6/2019 applicabili a tutte le tipologie di imprese (indipendentemente dal numero di dipendenti), ed in particolare alle imprese che occupino almeno 50 dipendenti.

    La principale novità in questo senso consiste in un obbligo a carico delle aziende con almeno 50 dipendenti di attuare un Piano che promuova la parità di trattamento, in conformità alle disposizioni degli articoli 45 e seguenti della LOIEMH.

    Per quanto riguarda i contenuti e le modalità di attuazione del Piano di Parità nelle aziende, segnaliamo le seguenti novità:

    • I temi ed i contenuti minimi che devono essere inclusi nel singolo Piano di Parità sono indicati in modo esaustivo.
    • E’ introdotta un’analisi della sotto-rappresentazione femminile in azienda quale tema da includere nel Piano.
    • La valutazione che le imprese devono compiere in fase di elaborazione del Piano di Parità deve essere oggetto di negoziazione con il rappresentante legale dei lavoratori.
    • È istituito un Registro dei Piano di Parità delle imprese, nel quale vanno iscritti tutti i Piani di Parità adottato dalle imprese, indipendentemente dal numero di lavoratori occupati.

    L’RDL 6/2019 introduce peraltro una nuova formulazione dell’articolo 28 dello Statuto dei Lavoratori, la quale sancisce l’obbligo per le imprese di conformarsi al principio della parità retributiva tra uomini e donne, stabilendo una serie di misure e obblighi a carico delle imprese, al fine di garantire l’effettivo rispetto della parità retributiva.

    In particolare, le nuove misure inserite nell’articolo 28 dello Statuto sono le seguenti:

    • Il testo definisce la nozione di “lavoro di pari valore“, al fine di promuovere un criterio unico ed eliminare ogni dubbio al riguardo.
    • Le imprese sono tenute a mantenere un Registro delle Retribuzioni, riportando i valori medi delle retribuzioni, delle componenti retributive supplementari e delle percezioni extra-salariali del proprio personale, differenziando i dati per genere e distribuendoli per gruppi professionali, categorie professionali o posizioni di lavoro di pari valore.
    • Il Registro delle Retribuzioni dovrà essere reso accessibile al rappresentante legale dei lavoratori.
    • Nelle imprese che occupano almeno 50 lavoratori con una retribuzione media relativa ai lavoratori di un genere superiore di almeno il 25% rispetto a quella dell’altro, è necessario inserire nel Registro delle Retribuzioni una motivazione di tale disparità, certificando che essa è dovuta a ragioni diverse dal genere dei lavoratori.

    L’inosservanza degli obblighi in materia di parità e, in particolare, di quelli attinenti al Piano di Parità ed alla parità retributiva tra uomini e donne, può comportare l’applicazione di pesanti sanzioni da parte dell’Ispettorato del Lavoro e della “Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social”.

    On 28 May 2019 the Dutch Parliament adopted new employment legislation: The Balanced Labour Market Act (‘Wet Arbeidsmarkt in Balans’), hereinafter the WAB. The most important changes are discussed below.

    New cumulation ground for dismissal

    The legislation introduces a new ground for dismissal. This makes it a bit easier for employers to dismiss employees. Dismissal will also be possible if there is a sum of circumstances, the so-called cumulation ground. Now the employer must fully comply with 1 of the 8 grounds for dismissal. This new ground gives the court the opportunity to combine circumstances. The employee can receive an extra half transitional allowance (on top of the current statutory transitional allowance) if the cumulation ground is used for the dismissal.

    Severance: Transitional allowance

    The new act arranges that employees will have the right to a transitional allowance immediately from the first start of the employment contract, instead of only after two years.

    The accrual of transitional allowance is reduced in case of long-term employment. The accrual for everyone, regardless of the age of the employee, is one third of a monthly salary.

    There will be a scheme for small employers to compensate the transitional allowance if they have to end their business due to retirement or illness.

    Extending the scope of the chain of employment agreements

    The current period after which successive fixed-term employment contracts legally change into an employment contract for an indefinite period is two years. The WAB broadens the succession of temporary contracts. Under the WAB it will still be possible to enter into a maximum of three temporary contracts. The maximum period of fixed-term contracts will be extended to three years. This chain of successive fixed-term employment contracts can be broken by an interruption period of six months.

    It is possible to shorten the interruption period between a chain of fixed-term contracts in a Collective Bargaining Agreement from six to three months if there is recurring temporary work that can be done for a maximum of nine months a year.

    An exception to the chain provision will be made for temporary workers in primary education who replace employees who became ill.

    Call agreement

    A new definition is introduced in Article 7: 628a paragraph 9 of the Dutch Civil Code: the ‘call agreement’. In call agreements the number of working hours per period and the salary are not established upfront but can vary depending on for example the amount of work available. Under the WAB an employee must be called by the employer at least four days in advance. If the employer does not follow this regulation, the employee is not obligated to come in for work. Call workers retain the right to wages for the period for which they were called if the work is cancelled less than four days in advance. The employer is obliged to offer the call worker an employment contract after a year for the average number of hours that he has worked in the previous twelve months. In Collective Bargaining Agreements alternative arrangements can be made under certain conditions.

    Payrolling

    Payroll employees will receive the same legal position and primary and secondary employment conditions as employees who are employed by the employer.

    Payroll employees are also entitled to an ‘adequate’ pension scheme.

    Unemployment benefit premium differentiation

    In order to make employment contracts for an indefinite period of time more attractive for employers, the WAB arranges for an unemployment benefit premium differentiation between permanent and temporary contracts. A lower premium will apply for employment contracts for an indefinite period of time and a higher premium for fixed-term employment contracts.

    Commencing date

    The intended commencing date of the WAB is 1 January 2020. The right to an adequate pension scheme for payrolling starts on 1 January 2021.

    The author of this post is Regine de Wit.

    10 practical aspects to consider for an adequate timing

    Meanwhile similar legal standards apply in most industrialized countries if an employment relationship shall be terminated; however, in every jurisdiction some specifics still need to be considered. The following ten aspects may be a first general guideline for the termination of an employment contract in Germany, in particular regarding its timing.

    1. In some cases notice needs to be given within a two-week period

    In case of gross misconduct an employer may be entitled to terminate an employment relationship forthwith. However, if notice of termination is not served to the employee within two weeks after acknowledgement of the respective facts, this right is forfeited.

    1. Notice has to be given in writing

    The notice has to be signed by the legal representative of the employer and delivered to the employee. Neither a transmission by facsimile nor an email with a scanned copy is sufficient. If the representative is not on site, timing may become an essential aspect of the termination process.

    1. Ordinary dismissal may be prohibited by a collective bargaining agreement

    Collective bargaining agreements often provide a ban on ordinary dismissal under certain circumstances (e.g. based on the age of the employee). A careful assessment of all applicable collective bargaining agreements before a termination is therefore indispensable.

    1. Insufficient information of the works councils may lead to an invalid termination

    The establishment of a works council is not mandatory in Germany. However, if it is established, it needs to be notified and heard before every termination of an employment contract. The notification must contain a sufficient description of the grounds for the termination, otherwise the termination may be deemed invalid. Having been notified, the works council has one week (in some cases: three days) to object. Any termination before such term without consent of the works council would be deemed invalid as well. Timing may therefore become again an essential aspect of the termination process.

    1. General dismissal protection is related to seniority and size of the establishment

    General dismissal protection is basically applicable in establishments with more than 10 employees. Exceptions may apply in favour of those employees whose employment relationships commenced already before 1st January 2004. In addition, the respective employee needs to have at least a seniority of six month. If these criteria are met, the termination has to be justified by operational reasons, misconduct or personal incapacity as set out in the Dismissal Protection Act.

    1. Some terminations may need prior permission

    Irrespective of the application of the afore mentioned Dismissal Protection Act some kind of terminations (e.g. employees on parental leave) may need a special permission of the works council, the Labour Court or the respective public authority as applicable. These procedures may last from some days up to two years.

    1. There is no general claim for severance payment in case of an unfair dismissal

    Aside from those agreed in termination agreements there is no general claim for severance payment in case of an unfair dismissal. In general, the statutory remedy will only be reinstatement and back pay. Only under certain circumstances each party may apply for the termination of the employment relationship and a severance payment in front of the Labour Court. However, in most of the cases parties end up in a voluntary termination agreement.

    1. Non-competes may lead to extensive payments and cannot be withdrawn forthwith unilaterally without cause

    A binding covenant to non-compete leads to a compensation payment of at least 50 % of the former salary for every month of its duration. Even in case of a justified termination it may only be terminated with a notice period of one year. However, both parties may agree upon its immediate suspension in a termination agreement.

    1. Any termination agreement has to be in written form as well

    Also a termination agreement needs to fulfil the same formal requirements as set out already above under point 2. Again, if the representative is not on site, timing may become an essential aspect of the bargaining process.

    1. The forfeiture clause of a termination agreement may not cover all claims 

    Termination agreements often contain general forfeiture clauses at their end, covering also those potential claims which have not been explicitly mentioned or identified by the parties. However, some claims (e.g. pension claims) may not be covered by such a (general) forfeiture clause.

    Please note that these ten aspects contain general information only. Further details as well as possible exceptions therefore need to be checked on a case-by-case basis by a professional advisor.

     

    Tha author of this post is Alexander Lentz

    L’imprenditore che intenda concentrarsi esclusivamente sul proprio core business ha la possibilità di ricorrere ad altri imprenditori, a cui affidare la realizzazione di tutte quelle opere e di quei servizi comunque necessari per la gestione dell’impresa.

    Il termine tecnico che si utilizza per definire un tale modus operandi è quello di “esternalizzazione” di parte dell’attività imprenditoriale e, solitamente, l’accordo che regola tale tipologia di collaborazione è un contratto di appalto, vale a dire il contratto con il quale una parte si impegna a compiere un’opera o un servizio a favore di un’altra e verso un corrispettivo in denaro.

    Esempio di contratto di appalto d’opera potrebbe essere il contratto con il quale un’impresa edile si obbliga a costruire un palazzo per una società immobiliare; esempio di appalto di servizi potrebbe essere il contratto che si stipula con un’impresa di pulizie per la pulizia del proprio stabile.

    L’appalto ha per oggetto una prestazione di “fare” nell’ambito della quale un soggetto, detto appaltatore, si impegna a svolgere un’attività determinata, fornendo ed organizzando i mezzi necessari e gestendo la realizzazione a proprio rischio; è poi necessario che l’attività sia organizzata in forma di impresa e che quindi l’appaltatore sia, esso stesso, un imprenditore.

    In Italia lo strumento dell’appalto ha sempre avuto grande diffusione ed utilizzo e da sempre rappresenta lo strumento privilegiato per esternalizzare attività poco remunerative nell’ambito di realtà imprenditoriali complesse: obiettivo di chi ricorre all’appalto è quello di realizzare efficienza in termini di risorse, sia economiche (riduzione dei costi) che materiali (riduzione di personale e delle responsabilità connesse alla sua gestione).

    Quanto sopra vale anche per gli imprenditori esteri che gestiscono o decidono di avviare un’attività in Italia: l’appalto rappresenta un ottimo strumento per delegare ad altri soggetti, in loco e con una specifica expertise in materia, la gestione di problematiche complesse quali: l’ottenimento di autorizzazioni pubbliche, l’approvvigionamento di particolari materie prime, il reclutamento sul territorio di risorse umane qualificate.

    L’esternalizzazione della attività non è un fenomeno omogeneo e le esigenze che spesso si presentano in concreto sono suscettibili di prestarsi anche a differenti soluzioni, a seconda dell’oggetto della prestazione, della tipologia e delle caratteristiche del committente o della particolare natura degli interessi coinvolti.

    Proprio in virtù delle suddette particolarità molto spesso, in luogo del contratto di appalto, l’imprenditore fa ricorso al contratto di subfornitura.

    Con il contratto di subfornitura un imprenditore si impegna a effettuare, per conto di una impresa committente, lavorazioni su prodotti semilavorati o su materie prime forniti dalla committente medesima, o si impegna a fornire all’impresa prodotti o servizi destinati ad essere incorporati o comunque ad essere utilizzati nell’ambito dell’attività economica del committente o nella produzione di un bene complesso, in conformità a progetti esecutivi, conoscenze tecniche e tecnologiche, modelli o prototipi forniti dall’impresa committente.

    Sintetizzando e forse banalizzando fiorenti dibattiti dottrinali e giurisprudenziali, potremmo dire che molto spesso la differenza tra un appalto di servizi e la “subfornitura” consiste nel fatto che in caso di subfornitura le attività oggetto del contratto vengono svolte su materiali del committente e/o consistono nella realizzazione di beni o servizi funzionali al processo produttivo del committente; in ogni caso, la subfornitura comporta la “dipendenza tecnologica” (ed anche economica) del subfornitore nei confronti del committente.

    Proprio il decentramento e la dissociazione che l’esternalizzazione di processi e attività realizza tra il “gestore” dell’attività esternalizzata ed il fruitore finale della stessa, suscita da sempre grande attenzione da parte del legislatore italiano.

    Attenzione finalizzata a tutelare soprattutto i dipendenti coinvolti nell’attività esternalizzata in caso di eventi nefasti idonei a privarli di garanzie legali di cui, invece, possono continuare a godere i dipendenti dell’appaltante committente (pensiamo ad esempio alla sofferenza finanziaria dell’appaltatore/subfornitore, o addirittura al suo coinvolgimento in procedure concorsuali, da cui derivi il mancato pagamento di retribuzioni e contributi).

    Per tali ragioni, ormai a far data dal 2003, il legislatore italiano ha introdotto un oneroso regime di solidarietà tra committente e appaltatore, nonché con ciascuno degli eventuali subappaltatori che, entro il limite di due anni dalla cessazione dell’appalto, sono obbligati in solido a corrispondere ai lavoratori i trattamenti retributivi, comprese le quote di trattamento di fine rapporto, nonché i contributi previdenziali e i premi assicurativi dovuti in relazione al periodo di esecuzione del contratto di appalto.

    Sino al mese di dicembre del 2017 la giurisprudenza di merito era consolidata nel ritenere che il regime della responsabilità solidale fosse applicabile esclusivamente all’appalto di servizi e non alla subfornitura. Circostanza questa che rendeva il ricorso alla subfornitura potenzialmente meno oneroso per il committente.

    Con sentenza n. 254 del 6 dicembre scorso, tuttavia, la prospettiva è stata completamente ribaltata dalla Corte Costituzionale che chiamata a pronunciarsi in materia ha stabilito l’applicazione estensiva del principio della responsabilità solidale anche tra committente e subfornitore.

    La sentenza parte dall’analisi della nota questione giurisprudenziale circa la configurazione giuridica del contratto di subfornitura e, in particolare, circa l’autonomia o meno del contratto di fornitura rispetto al contratto di appalto.

    Senza entrare nel merito del dibattito giurisprudenziale esistente, la Corte Costituzionale sostiene che, al di là dell’orientamento seguito quanto all’assimilazione o meno della subfornitura al contratto di appalto, è possibile operare l’estensione della responsabilità del committente/appaltatore ai crediti di lavoro dei dipendenti del subfornitore.

    Ciò in quanto l’introduzione della norma sulla responsabilità solidale in ipotesi di appalto, non può giustificare l’esclusione della medesima garanzia nei confronti dei dipendenti del subfornitore, atteso che la tutela del soggetto che assicura un’attività lavorativa indiretta non può non estendersi a tutti i livelli di decentramento.

    Sulla base di tali considerazioni, dunque, il principio della responsabilità solidale va correttamente interpretato nel senso che il committente/appaltatore è obbligato in solido (anche) con il subfornitore, relativamente ai crediti lavorativi, contributivi e assicurativi dei dipendenti di questi, al pari quindi di quanto lo è verso i dipendenti del subappaltatore.

    In sostanza il committente risponde direttamente, salvo successiva rivalsa, per le rivendicazioni economiche avanzate dai dipendenti dell’appaltatore, del subappaltatore e del subfornitore e di tutti i lavoratori che dovessero essere stati utilizzati nell’attività esternalizzata in relazione a: i) crediti retributivi maturati durante il periodo di correlazione tra committente ed impresa che ha eseguito i lavori, ivi compresi, “pro – quota”, quelli relativi al trattamento di fine rapporto; e ii) contributi previdenziali e premi assicurativi dovuti per il periodo di esecuzione della prestazione.

    Il lavoratore può chiedere direttamente al committente il pagamento di quanto maturato nei confronti del proprio datore. Il committente, chiamato in giudizio, non può mai chiedere l’escussione del coobbligato in solido: deve pagare salva l’azione di regresso.

    Il committente quindi, nonostante l’esigenza iniziale fosse quella di fare efficienza e ridurre costi, può trovarsi esposto ad un rischio economico molto maggiore rispetto al costo risparmiato, soprattutto se le rivendicazioni economiche riguardano situazioni non controllabili a priori: facciamo riferimento ad esempio, all’eventuale personale utilizzato “in maniera irregolare” dall’appaltatore/subfornitore, oppure alle rivendicazioni connesse allo svolgimento di mansioni superiori, od anche alla richiesta di lavoro straordinario al di fuori dei parametri di legge.

    Esistono naturalmente sistemi e meccanismi idonei a contenere il rischio o, comunque, idonei a garantire al committente maggiore controllo sul corretto funzionamento della filiera esternalizzata.

    Tra questi, ad esempio, alla possibilità di prevedere contrattualmente strumenti di tutela economica quali fideiussioni e manleve.

    Ma esiste anche la possibilità di implementare, sempre nel contratto, un adeguato sistema di controllo sulla corretta gestione del personale nonché sull’erogazione di retribuzioni, contributi e premi assicurativi.

    Alla luce di quanto sopra, concludiamo individuando nella figura del consulente esperto in materia di diritto del lavoro il miglior supporto per l’imprenditore che intenda avventurarsi in maniera consapevole e sicura in un processo di esternalizzazione.

    L’autore di questo articolo è Domenica Cotroneo.

    Il distacco transnazionale di lavoratori è quel meccanismo attraverso cui le imprese di uno Stato membro prestano servizi in un altro Stato membro inviando direttamente i propri dipendenti nel territorio di quest’ultimo.

    Nel corso degli ultimi 20 anni tale fenomeno è cresciuto in maniera rilevante a livello europeo, soprattutto a seguito dell’ingresso nell’Unione dei Paesi dell’est, che avevano – e in parte continuano ad avere – un costo del lavoro sensibilmente più basso di quello degli altri Stati membri.

    Il fenomeno è stato quindi oggetto di diversi interventi del legislatore europeo e di quelli nazionali, nonché di alcune rilevanti decisioni della Corte di Giustizia. Esso si pone infatti in relazione con diversi diritti fondamentali riconosciuti dall’Unione e richiede un equilibrato bilanciamento degli interessi in gioco.

    Occorre garantire le libertà di circolazione di lavoratori,  capitali e merci e, in particolare, la libera prestazione dei servizi (art. 56 TFUE), salvaguardando al contempo la leale concorrenza tra le imprese e la tutela dei lavoratori. Il legislatore comunitario intervenne sul tema con la Direttiva 96/71/CE (attuata in Italia col D. Lgs. 72/2000), poi integrata dalla Direttiva 2014/67/UE (attuata in Italia col D. Lgs. 136/2016).

    Il legislatore europeo e quello nazionale perseguono con le citate disposizioni due principali obiettivi:

    – contrastare i distacchi fittizi attraverso società di comodo, le cosiddette letterbox company, garantendo equilibrio concorrenziale a livello europeo;

    – garantire uniformità di trattamento e di tutela ai lavoratori coinvolti, impedendo fenomeni di ‘dumping sociale’.

    Per raggiungere questi obiettivi viene rafforzato il sistema di cooperazione amministrativa tra le diverse autorità ispettive nazionali,  vengono individuati criteri predefiniti per la valutazione dell’autenticità del distacco e vengono stabilite condizioni minime da garantire ai lavoratori.

    Per valutare l’autenticità del distacco, l’art. 4 della direttiva 2014/67/UE (recepito nell’art. 3 della legge italiana) indica alcune caratteristiche da prendere in considerazione con riferimento alle imprese coinvolte e ai lavoratori distaccati.

    Per le imprese sono considerati rilevanti i seguenti elementi:

    1. a) il luogo in cui l’impresa ha la propria sede legale e amministrativa, utilizza uffici, paga imposte e contributi previdenziali ed è iscritta alla camera di commercio;
    2. b) il luogo in cui i lavoratori sono assunti e quello da cui sono distaccati;
    3. c) la legge applicabile ai contratti stipulati dall’impresa con i suoi lavoratori e con i suoi clienti;
    4. d) il luogo in cui l’impresa esercita la propria attività economica principale e in cui è occupato il suo personale amministrativo;
    5. e) il numero dei contratti eseguiti o l’ammontare del fatturato realizzato dall’impresa nello Stato membro di stabilimento, tenendo conto della specificità delle piccole e medie imprese e di quelle di nuova costituzione.

    Per i lavoratori vengono prese in considerazione queste circostanze:

    1. a) lo svolgimento dell’attività lavorativa per un periodo di tempo limitato in un altro Stato membro;
    2. b) la data di inizio del distacco;
    3. c) l’esercizio abituale dell’attività lavorativa nello Stato di provenienza;
    4. d) il ritorno a prestare attività lavorativa nello Stato cui è stato distaccato;
    5. e) la natura e le modalità di svolgimento dell’attività;
    6. f) il rimborso da parte del datore di lavoro distaccante delle spese di viaggio, vitto o alloggio  e le modalità di pagamento;
    7. g) eventuali periodi precedenti in cui la medesima attività è stata svolta dallo stesso o da un altro lavoratore distaccato.

    Tutte queste circostanze devono essere considerate nel loro complesso, nessuna è di per sé decisiva e spetta alle autorità nazionali la valutazione finale dell’autenticità o meno del distacco.

    L’eventuale accertamento di un distacco fittizio determina rilevanti sanzioni amministrative a carico sia dell’impresa distaccante che di quella utilizzatrice, nonché la loro corresponsabilità per i crediti dei lavoratori.

    Il legislatore italiano ha inoltre rafforzato tale previsione: in simmetria con quanto previsto per i casi di intermediazione illecita di mano d’opera, ha infatti stabilito che, se il distacco non risulta autentico, “il lavoratore è considerato a tutti gli effetti alle dipendenze del soggetto che ne ha utilizzato la prestazione” (art. 3 legge italiana).

    Ai fini della tutela dei lavoratori e dell’equilibrio concorrenziale, l’art. 3 della direttiva 96/71/CE (art. 4 della legge italiana) stabilisce che, qualunque sia la legislazione applicabile al rapporto di lavoro, gli Stati membri devono far sì che ai lavoratori distaccati sul loro territorio siano garantite, per il periodo del distacco, condizioni di lavoro analoghe a quelle dei lavoratori nazionali. In particolare, i lavoratori distaccati devono godere di un trattamento equivalente in relazione a:

    – periodi massimi di lavoro e minimi di riposo;

    – durata minima delle ferie annuali retribuite;

    – tariffe minime salariali;

    – sicurezza e salute sul lavoro;

    – tutela per lavoratrici madri, bambini e giovani;

    – parità di trattamento uomo/donna e principi di non discriminazione.

    Dal punto di vista pratico, l’aspetto di più complessa valutazione riguarda le tariffe minime salariali. Nei diversi paesi dell’Unione esse sono infatti definite in maniera diversa, da fonti diverse (legge/fonti amministrative/contratti collettivi) e sono composte da molte voci, non sempre sovrapponibili.

    D’altro canto, gli aspetti economici sono determinanti per imprese e lavoratori per valutare l’opportunità e la convenienza del distacco.

    Proprio per queste ragioni, la Corte di Giustizia ha chiarito che il confronto tra le diverse tariffe nazionali deve essere condotto confrontando l’importo complessivo e non le singole voci salariali. La Corte ha inoltre precisato che il confronto deve essere limitato alle voci retributive in senso stretto, cioè in diretta relazione con la prestazione, escludendo per esempio i premi supplementari. Infine la giurisprudenza comunitaria ha chiarito che le voci retributive da prendere in considerazione devono essere accessibili e chiare per il datore di lavoro distaccante.

    Da ultimo le disposizioni europee impongono agli Stati membri di consentire ai lavoratori distaccati sul loro territorio l’accesso agli strumenti di tutela, anche giudiziaria, predisposti per i lavoratori nazionali.

    A questo fine, in Italia si è esplicitamente prevista la facoltà, per i lavoratori distaccati, di agire sia in sede amministrativa che giudiziale (art. 5 legge italiana).

    In Spagna il licenziamento viene classificato individuale o collettivo, a seconda del numero di lavoratori assoggettati a tale misura.

    L’articolo 51 dello Statuto dei Lavoratori considera “licenziamento collettivo” l’estinzione del rapporto di lavoro causata da motivazioni economiche, tecniche, organizzative o di produzione quando, nel periodo di novanta giorni, coinvolga: (i) almeno dieci lavoratori di un’impresa con meno di 100 dipendenti; (ii) il dieci per cento dei lavoratori in una impresa che abbia tra cento e trecento dipendenti; (iii) trenta lavoratori nelle imprese con più di trecento dipendenti.

    Il licenziamento potrà essere impugnato in sede giudiziale, entro 20 giorni lavorativi e potrà essere dichiarato legittimo (procedente), illegittimo (improcedente) o nullo.

    Il licenziamento si considera legittimo quando è confermato l’inadempimento da parte del lavoratore contestato dall’imprenditore nella comunicazione del licenziamento e sono stati soddisfatti i requisiti formali, quali (i) la comunicazione per iscritto al lavoratore; (ii) una sufficiente descrizione dei fatti che hanno determinato il licenziamento e (iii) l’indicazione della data a partire della quale il licenziamento sarà efficace.

    Sarà dichiarato illegittimo il licenziamento privo dei requisiti citati nel paragrafo precedente.

    Il licenziamento è nullo nei seguenti casi: (i) violazione dei diritti fondamentali o libertà pubblica; (ii) il lavoratore è una vittima di violenza di genere; (iii) salvo che si dimostri la giusta causa, nei casi di: lavoratrici incinte, con permesso di maternità, paternità o allattamento, o con riduzione della giornata lavorativa per curare un minore di dodici anni o una persona con una incapacità fisica, psichica o sensoriale.

    Nel caso in cui il licenziamento sia dichiarato illegittimo, l’imprenditore entro cinque giorni dovrà scegliere se reintegrare il lavoratore nel posto di lavoro (e pagargli le mensilità trascorse tra il licenziamento e la notificazione della sentenza, i cosiddetti salarios de tramitación) oppure pagargli l’indennità, il cui importo dipende dalla durata del rapporto, come si analizzerà di seguito. Nel caso in cui il lavoratore licenziato sia un rappresentante sindacale, la scelta tra le due opzioni spetterà al lavoratore e non all’imprenditore.

    Se il licenziamento è dichiarato nullo, l’imprenditore avrà l’obbligo di reintegrare il lavoratore nel posto di lavoro e potrà essere condannato al risarcimento dei danni assieme al pagamento delle mensilità trascorse tra il licenziamento e la notifica della sentenza.

    Come accennato in precedenza, l’indennità dovuta al lavoratore (alternativa al reintegro per i licenziamenti illegittimi) dipende dal momento in cui è iniziato il rapporto di lavoro.

    L’indennità da pagare nel caso del licenziamento di un lavoratore assunto dopo il 12 febbraio 2012, sarà pari a 33 giorni di retribuzione per ogni anno lavorato.

    Nel caso in cui il lavoratore licenziato sia stato assunto prima del 12 febbraio 2012, l’indennità verrà calcolata come segue:

    • per il periodo trascorso tra la firma del contratto e il 12 febbraio 2012, l’indennità è pari a 45 giorni di retribuzione per ogni anno di rapporto;
    • sarà pari a 33 giorni di retribuzione per ogni anno lavorato dopo il 12 febbraio 2012.

    In ogni caso l’indennità non potrà ammontare a più di 720 giorni di retribuzione, salvo il caso in cui, dal calcolo dell’indennità del periodo precedente il 12 febbraio 2012, risultasse un numero di giorni superiore a 720, nel quale l’indennità non potrà essere superiore a quarantadue mensilità.

    Inoltre è importante ricordare che l’indennità in caso di licenziamento è esente da qualunque imposta fino a 180.000 euro. Per la cifra superiore, la tassazione sarà parificata ai redditi di lavoro, con una riduzione del 30% nel caso di rapporto di lavoro terminato da almeno due anni.

    Javier Gaspar

    Aree di attività

    • Arbitrato
    • Distribuzione
    • Franchising
    • Contenzioso
    • Sport
    Contatta Javier
    Latvia - Legalmondo

    Latvia – Establishing a company
    • Diritto societario
    • Lettonia

    Scrivi a Javier





      Leggi la privacy policy di Legalmondo.
      Questo sito è protetto da reCAPTCHA e si applicano le Norme sulla privacy e i Termini di servizio di Google.

      Netherlands – New Employment law from 1 January 2020

      17 Luglio 2019

      • Paesi Bassi
      • Lavoro

      Today during Covid–19 circumstances Gig economy approach has become more necessity rather than theoretical possibility. But still transformation of Latvian business and employment market does not run so smooth. Why so?

      At the end of year 2019 the State Labour Inspectorate of Latvia in cooperation with private partners released results of a research on new forms of employment presence and potential in Latvia (http://www.vdi.gov.lv/files/jnf_gala_zinojums.pdf). The results of this research as well of other international researches are rather controversial as do not conform to the real situation in the country.

      Although the aforementioned researches claim that employers in Latvia are supporters of old-style employment and are not willing to change the practice, in fact the laws of Latvia in effect do not provide flexibility on the approach of employment.

      Covid-19 has badly hit a lot of economies, and actually highlighted the largest challenges – employers to save their business would like to pay less, whereas employees need flexibility as they are required to work remotely and combine their private and work lives.

      In this article an analysis of how general conditions of employment applicable today correspond to frame of main five aspects of a Gig economy will be provided.

      Employment “one to one” or “one to many”

      Gig economy considers that traditional employment has no longer place in our world. The employment should be available among one employer and many employees, many employers and many employees or one employee and many employers, thus employment being in each contractual relations part time, nevertheless all employees are jointly and severally liable for the result of work.

      Labour Law of Latvia keeps traditions of employment – one employer and one employee. Likewise part time work is permitted just in statutorily listed cases like to replace an employee in long term absence, in case of increase of the workload in the company, in emergency cases, and in certain areas like culture, sports, banking, education and diplomacy. Moreover, length of a fixed-term employment may not exceed 5 years in total (including extensions). As a result of this majority of employments are open ended.

      In order to solve the burden imposed by law, employers often use potential employees as external service providers based on a Service Agreement in this manner imitating self employment. Self employment for a payor is less expensive tax wise, which led authorities to introduce limiting measures for flexibility of entrepreneurs.
      In the Law on Personal Income Tax criteria of employment per se where introduced. Namely, an agreement with an individual can be deemed as contractual relationships subject to payment of salary and accordingly payroll if at least one of the following conditions has been ascertained:

      • the individual has economic dependence upon the party to whom he/she provides services;
      • lack of assumption of financial risks in the fulfilment of work or no liability in respect to lost debtor debts;
      • integration of the contracted individual into the company to which services are provided (e.g. existence of a work or recreational areas, a duty to observe internal rules of the company);
      • availability of holidays and paid leave in accordance with schedules of the company;
      • work shall be performed under management or control of the other contracting party – the customer, and the individual is deprived of possibility to involve in the service provision his/ her personnel or sub-contractors; or
      • the individual is not owner of the assets used while rendering services to the company.

      Respectively in case the State Revenue Service of Latvia (tax authority) detects presence of the criteria listed, it shall be entitled to reclassify the contractual relations of the seemingly independent parties into employment relations as a result of which remuneration paid to the individual would be subject to full payroll as any other salary gained on basis of Employment Agreement. The tax expense threshold the companies playing with by out of box employment results in significant difference:

      • payroll in case of employment – progressive personal income tax between 20% to 23% depending on the income (at certain level the annual income of an individual may though be subject to maximum rate of the personal income tax – 31.4%); social security contributions of 35.09%; majority of these expenses being on the employer’s shoulders; whereas
      • taxes applicable in case of self-employment – progressive personal income tax between 20% to 31.4% depending on the income; social security contributions of 32.15%, basis of these compulsory contributions being a freely chosen income; in this case if the contracted individual is a registered economic operator – the taxes are all his/her liability, whereas if the individual has not registered with tax authorities independent economic activity, the taxes shall be withheld at the moment of disbursement of the remuneration and paid into the State budget by the company contracting the individual.

      In circumstances of Covid–19 the traditional employment scenarios chosen by entrepreneurs due to rather strict statutory rules have heavily impacted operation of businesses as employers had to either dismiss their employees or let them in idleness with crisis management allowance established by the State as support during Covid–19.

      The outcome showed that applying of different type of “employment” structures, like contracting specialists on the need to basis or crowdsourcing of employees among numerous employers could have facilitated challenges the employers face today in many ways – provide availability of different specialists for the project/ time period required, limit expenses in respect to the employees whom the companies were forced to let in idleness, and alike, all of this still keeping the business running.

      Employment volatility as new formula for flexibility

      As described earlier, present requirements of the Labour Law of Latvia require employment relationships to be based on clear and sustainable rules thus ensuring predictable and long term support to the employees, both in terms of employment and social security.
      The strict approach is even more secured by strict statutory conditions and notice periods under which an employee can be dismissed:

      With a notice of immediate effect:

      • while performing work the employee has acted unlawfully and therefore has lost trust of the employer;
      • while performing the work employee is in a state of intoxication (e.g. alcohol, drugs, other); or
      • the employee is unable to perform the contracted work due to a state of health, and this is confirmed by a medical opinion;

      With a 10 days notice:

      • in case employee has without justifiable reason materially violated the contracted work order;
      • while performing the work the employee has acted contrary to good morals, and such action is incompatible with the continuation of the employment;
      • the employee has grossly violated work safety rules and endangered safety and health of other persons; or
      • due to temporary incapacity of the employee for work for more than 6 and up to 12 months;

      With a one month notice:

      • if the employee is in lack of sufficient professional skills to perform the contracted work;
      • an employee previously employed in the particular position has been reinstated to work;
      • in case of staff redundancy (presuming that employer will not hire immediately new employee in same position); or
      • in case the employer is being liquidated.

      Having seen the list of statutory conditions one would definitely agree that only few circumstances are of a regular character, meaning can be actually applied, whereas the rest are seldom met. Sure there is also available an exception out of this strongly established frame – to terminate employment without any specific reason if the employee and employer can reach a mutual agreement. However that may be a challenge – employees are not obliged to participate in negotiations with employers and can simply walk away.

      So how much of volatility and flexibility can be reached in such strongly fixed statutory frame?
      Practically not much.

      Accordingly under Covid–19 circumstances companies have applied staff redundancy condition more than ever, which may not have been necessary if employment structures would be more flexible. Part of employees today let in idleness have started to look for new job even before the actual dismissal, because perception of stability and predictability is the driving force. This actually showing that although employment of a periodical character would not provide long term income and social security, with this approach the employees of Latvia would have been more used and resistant to fast changing circumstances and periods of actual idleness (meaning also – had some savings).

      It appears that development of economy and business approaches runs on a speed of light, whereas statutory regulation does not manage to follow in those footsteps. The question is though do we need today law and regulation for each detail, if in practice changes come into our lives so fast. Maybe a better solution would be regulation on general principles and practically providing field of different approaches and solutions which would fit more each business segment and keep economy running also in such extraordinary circumstances as Covid-19.

      A close cooperation among numerous employers

      The Gig economy concept provides for presence of different types of cooperation among employers and employees, including crowdsourcing of personnel, sharing of working spaces, liaising business operations and sharing liability in respect to work performed.

      Under present requirements of employment and tax laws of Latvia having shared workforce is rather complicated. The statutory restrictions keep accountability of employers at a very high level thus at the end of the day the approach of traditional employment – “one employer and one employee” – on Latvian market appears to be the easiest. Likewise the strict statutory rules have developed certain culture also on the employee side – “I have one master” seems the most correct and secure way and any other solutions are simply out of discussion.

      As an example, it took years for the Latvian market to admit that employees can be also leased out. Due to long term difficulties with practical applicability of this concept and contractual split of liabilities between lessor and lessee in respect to the employee (being those days at full discretion of the contractual parties), not always being favourable for the employee, in year 2011 changes to the Labour Law were introduced. The amendments established precise definition on what a lease of employees is, the scope of liability and split of duties among the parties resulting therefrom. However not without creating new burdens.

      The statutory protection level of employees on the Latvian market has always been very high and same became applicable in case of lease of workforce. No doubt employees have to be protected; however employee lease is a slightly different way of employment and therefore the regulation in place is still not always compatible with differentiation of employment schemes possible. Last but not least, another aspect complicating applicability of lease of employees is that lease of workforce is set as licensable operation. The procedure to obtain license is complicate enough and involves preparation of paper loads, moreover under statutory requirements a license must be obtained even if the employees are leased between related companies. Thus benefits of this employment structure are certainly disputable.

      Crowdsourcing of employees is the next step; however theoretically possible already today. Individuals could become self employed specialists and enter into contracts with different companies, thus avoiding of the risk under Law on Personal Income Tax (described in this article earlier) to be recognized as employee of any of these companies provided of course that the individual assumes certain financial risks and does job with his/her own tools in majority. It can be considered also as mitigation of risks for both parties – the individual has certain financial and social security stability, as losing one customer would not heavily impact the individual’s income and life quality; whereas on the company’s side – expenses can be planned according to business plans and necessity. But not all individuals are today ready to work without strong supervision and assume full liability.

      Covid-19 showed that flexibility should be introduced. Moreover a plan on mitigation of risks and business sustainability are not just nice words, it is a must have plan to be updated constantly for the companies to be ready for extraordinary situations. Likewise stability the employees consider they have due to open ended “one master” employment are very volatile, the risks are always out there and nothing should be deemed as for granted.

      Nevertheless, pure employment issues are not the only challenges in the Gig economy approach.

      Remote and digital employment – the skills for the future

      Gig economy idea claims for flexibility and free choice of place to be, which for a traditional society like Latvia is a true challenge. Historically established traditions of frame and control in each aspect are still alive and part of the culture, whereas new generation which was born in years of independence already with their different view is considered as rebels.

      Labor Law of Latvia states ten mandatory terms and conditions to be included in each that Employment Agreements:

      • name, surname, ID number/ birth date, address of the employee; name, registration number, address of the employer;
      • starting date of the employment;
      • expected length of the employment (in case the agreement is concluded for certain period of time);
      • place of work and/ or in case employee will be required to perform work duties in different places, this must be clearly indicated;
      • the position employee is employed for indicating also code of the profession according to Classification of Professions established by the State;
      • amount of remuneration agreed and date of payment thereof;
      • contracted work time per day or per week;
      • length of the annual paid leave;
      • notice periods of the Employment Agreement;
      • indication to Collective Agreement and internal procedures and policies of the company applicable to the said employment.

      These mandatory aspects must be included in the agreement irrespective of whether they are statutorily fixed or can be changed upon agreement of the parties. Moreover, in case further changes in these terms shall be required the employer is obliged to inform the employee on that with one month prior written notice. Whereas coming into effect of the amendments to the agreement shall be absolutely subject to agreement between the parties or it triggers rights for the employer to unilaterally terminate employment (based though on staff reduction argument). Thus clear statement of where the work place is forms one of the key elements of the employment and changing it is rather inflexible.

      But it must be also taken into account that historically the concept of a fixed work place is connected to certain additional and consequential aspects. Namely, performance of work in the work place indicated in the Employment Agreement is solely subject to payment of salary and if applicable – compensation for overtime, as a general rule – not less than in amount of 100% of the hourly or daily salary rate set. Whereas work outside the work place established by the Employment Agreement may be deemed one of two business trip types and statutory rule is to provide additional protection to employees when they have to perform their work outside used place, especially if this is away from home:

      • Business trip A (komandējums) – a trip for a certain period of time based on order of the employer, to another location either inland or abroad to perform work duties or to promote qualification. This business trip is subject to compensation by the employer of daily allowance at least in the statutorily established amount, transportation and luggage expenses, expenses for accommodation, parking expenses, insurance expenses, participations fees at the events and alike;
      • Business trip B (darba brauciens) – work of the employee, if it takes place while travelling in accordance with the concluded Employment Agreement/ job description, inland or abroad, if the work involves regular/ systematic trips and change of location. This business trip is subject to compensation by the employer of slightly less expenses than in case of the business trip A – transportation expenses, expenses for accommodation, parking expenses, insurance expenses, expenses for transportation of luggage and few more.

      At the end of the day it is significant for the employer to precisely establish whether this is employment at another place as provides Employment Agreement or one of the business trips, accordingly precisely detecting which business trip type is applied as on this depends the overall amount of expenses to be compensated for the employee. And even more, certain aspects as for instance whether the employee can return to the residence place at the end of the day can decrease the amount of compensation to be paid. Accordingly applying of a fixed place of work may be financial wise more advantageous for the employer than flexibility of location for the employee.

      Another challenge of the work outside the office premises is compliance with work and health safety rules. When the work is performed in office premises of the employer it is mandatory obligation of the employer to ensure safe and healthy work conditions for its employees that including air conditions, work place suitable to spend hours in performing duties, safe and suitable tools for work and alike. Likewise the employer is in charge of running trainings for employees in this respect.

      Before extraordinary Covid–19 circumstances remote work was present in Latvia; however it was merely optional and applied in exceptional cases. Each case requiring ongoing remote work was true stress to employers, because the only way how to mitigate responsibility of the employer in respect to work safety was to conclude an additional agreement, with the employee probably stating that it has been initiative of the employee to work remotely and employer has agreed to that, thus the liability in respect to the work safety (and health) condition being transferred fully to the employee.

      Co-working spaces as a first change in culture had shaken not only the traditional approach of what a work place should be, but also the statutory frame. Due to various forms of employment becoming more and more relevant, including remote work, when the employee works at home or elsewhere outside the company, necessity for adaption of the work safety regulation to current trends became inevitable.
      As a result in October 2019 amendments to the Labour Protection Law were adopted.
      The new regulation coming into effect on July 1, 2020 finally declares what is a remote work, excluding therefrom work which is related to regular travelling. The new rules also establish obligation for the remote work performer to cooperate and exchange information with the employer in evaluation of work safety risks in the environment the employee is going to perform the work, if such circumstances can endanger or impact safety and health of the employee. The support in evaluation of the work safety must be provided by the employer irrespective of number of locations the employee would decide to perform the work at. And the employer will be responsible for the recordkeeping in respect to such work place evaluations. Nevertheless the part of law in respect to liability has not changed overall – the employer remains responsible for work and health safety at work of the persons employed/ contracted.

      It can be already today predicted that practicalities of the newly established approach will cause a lot of tricky and disputable situations. In a culture where employees are not keen to take responsibility, the new regulation will trigger employee claims to finance and ensure working conditions per individual choice and ambitions unless the employers will develop precise internal policies and procedures on conditions and equipment company deems sufficient and appropriate for the particular position in which the employee is employed.

      Hence the statutory regulation obviously needs more of development and tests in deployment before Gig economy approach can be deemed as fitting the culture and expectations of the society and aligning the statutory rules.

      For performance of the work duties especially information and communications technologies (ICT) are required

      And finally – under the Gig economy performance of work remotely would not be possible without proper gadgets – PCs, smartphones, tablets etc.

      When it comes to extraordinary circumstances like Covid-19 our very well digitalized society appears to be well skilled mainly in using digital social media, but as far as it concerns doing work, not yet so sophisticated. Lockdown discovered that a lot of inhabitants of Latvia have very poor ICT with limited functionality, low security level and even outdated. When using such equipment for performance of work duties the productivity is under question, cooperation of employees limps, reaching results takes longer time. But even more – data (especially confidential information) of the employer is endangered when poor ICT solutions are used.

      If we take a look at digitalization of Latvia, although not much internationally advertised, it is at a high level.
      Already today Latvian society has access to:

      • Latvia has one of the fastest internet connections in the world;
      • registration of corporate changes with the Company Register by submitting electronically signed documents (www.ur.gov.lv; www.latvija.lv);
      • complying with tax reporting requirements via electronic tool of the State Revenue Service, providing all communication with the tax authority also electronically (eds.vid.gov.lv);
      • signing majority of documents (public and private) electronically with secure digital signature and a time stamp (granted based on and connected with ID and passport of an individual) issued by LVRTC – one of the leading electronic communication service providers in Latvia (www.eparaksts.lv). This signature is recognized and can be combined with similar electronic signatures of other countries, e.g. Lithuania and Estonia. Even more – since some time mobile version of the secure electronic signature (and time stamp) is available, which means that any documents can be signed also in a smart phone;
      • notaries of Latvia perform their duties and execute documents electronically with secure digital signature and a time stamp;
      • State and majority of municipal authorities are welcoming electronic communication;

      and many more electronic solutions.

      Irrespective of that the mindset of “paper prevails over other solutions” is still there in society. Attack of Covid-19 literally pushed the society towards digitalization in mindset too and actually understanding that tools and solutions required for remote business handing and employment are already there, now we only need to understand what would be the procedures to correctly implement those in real time and every day, because:

      • the old processes employees and employers are used to, do not work anymore;
      • both parties – employees and employers lack clarity on how to manage work with no stress or at least at proportionate stress level;
      • the remote work requires new skills not only for employees but also for management. How about control over employee work, what are the ways to manage it if all the team is not in one room;
      • no matter how digitally developed is the country each individual is though on different level of development in this respect, and this becomes true challenge when it comes to day-to-day remote work and cooperation;
      • and last but not least – the employers have invested in tools and equipment within on prems concept, whereas remote work needs different type of investment, more developed tools and IT security guarantees.

      This means that each company needs an actual transformation plan irrespective of the business it operates in. The digitalization is inevitable, it is a rational optimization of resources used, development of new skills and taking each employee on a whole new level of professional performance – individually and team wise. For companies digitalization increases competitiveness and readiness to unexpected circumstances and sustainability of business operation.

      So summarizing all the aspects analyzed during this article, Covid-19 has made people think not only, what is actual value of the employment and how one can concurrently protect employees and its business, but also how much of processes we can transform in an e-approach immediately and where we still need know-how and investment.
      Transforming into a Gig economy requires much more than overnight meditation with one thought – this shall pass. It is a new way of living.

      On March 31, 2020 the details of emergency measures where shared in a press conference and the scheme was published simultaneously. This memo sets out the main lines of the NOW scheme.

      Loss of turnover

      Under the NOW scheme, employers can apply for an allowance for labour costs if they expect a loss of turnover of at least 20%. The loss of turnover of at least 20% must occur over a three-month period starting on the first day of the months March, April or May 2020. It must always relate to a consecutive period of three months.

      The turnover is compared with 25% of the turnover from January to December 2019.

      The loss of turnover is determined at group level. If a group as a whole has a loss of turnover of less than 20%, no compensation will be paid to any individual parts of that group that are still inactive. Net turnover is taken as the net turnover, i.e. the income from the supply of goods and services from the business of the legal entity less discounts and the like and tax levied on the turnover.

      Wages and salaries

      The employer must pay the wages to the employees in full, but can apply to the UWV (social security insurer for employees) for an allowance for labour costs. On the other hand, the employee must also be fully available to perform work.

      The NOW scheme also covers employees with employees with a flexible contract insofar as they continue to be employed and receive wages from the employer during the subsidy period. The wage bill of all employees with a social security wage (virtually all) are eligible for the subsidy. These are, for example, employees with a so-called fictitious employment contract for employee insurance, but not voluntarily insured persons.

      Wages up to € 9,538 gross per month are considered, the amount surpassing the same is not considered for the subsidy. Additional charges and costs such as employer contributions and employee contributions to pension and the accrual of holiday allowance are also compensated. A lump-sum surcharge for employer charges of 30% applies.

      Advance payment

       The advance payment provided under the NOW is, in principle, based on the wage bill for the January 2020 return period. If there are no wage data for January 2020, the UWV will assume November 2019. If there are no data for this period either, no subsidy can be granted.

      If the wage bill for the months March-April-May is lower, the amount of the subsidy will be reduced by 90% of the amount by which the wage bill fell. The settlement is an incentive to keep employees employed as much as possible for the hours they worked before the severe drop in turnover.

      Calculation

      The amount of the allowance for wage costs depends on the drop in turnover and amounts to a maximum of 90% of the wage bill. For example: If 100% of the turnover is lost, the allowance amounts to 90% of the wage and salary bill of the employer and if 50% of the turnover is lost, the allowance amounts to 45% of the wage and salary bill of the employer.

      Extension of the arrangement

      It was previously announced that the period of the allowance, which is 3 months, may be extended once for a further period of 3 months. The Cabinet now announces that this extension has not yet been decided; it will be decided before 1 June 2020, so that any second tranche will be in line with the first application period ending on 31 May 2020. In case of extension, further conditions may be added to the scheme.

      Prohibition of dismissal

      When applying on the grounds of the NOW, the employer undertakes in advance not to apply for dismissal on the grounds of business economics for his employees during the period for which the allowance is received. The employer is therefore expected not to apply to the UWV for permission to terminate an employment contract on the grounds of business economics in the period from 18 March to 31 May 2020 inclusive. The prohibition on dismissal does not apply to dismissal applications submitted to the UWV in the period from 1 March to 17 March 2020.

      If a request for dismissal is nevertheless made and this request is not withdrawn (or not withdrawn on time), a correction will be made when the subsidy is determined. When the subsidy is determined, the wages of the employees for whom dismissal has been requested will be determined. This wage is then increased by 50%. This wage plus the 50% increase is deducted from the total wage sum on which the final amount of the subsidy is based.

      Submitting the request

      The UWV will be charged with processing the application. The applications are expected to be submitted on 6 April next. The first advance payments will be made within 2 to 4 weeks. This advance payment will in any case amount to 80% of the grant.

      Questo articolo si propone di illustrare le nuove norme in materia di parità di genere introdotte dal RDL 6/2019 applicabili a tutte le tipologie di imprese (indipendentemente dal numero di dipendenti), ed in particolare alle imprese che occupino almeno 50 dipendenti.

      La principale novità in questo senso consiste in un obbligo a carico delle aziende con almeno 50 dipendenti di attuare un Piano che promuova la parità di trattamento, in conformità alle disposizioni degli articoli 45 e seguenti della LOIEMH.

      Per quanto riguarda i contenuti e le modalità di attuazione del Piano di Parità nelle aziende, segnaliamo le seguenti novità:

      • I temi ed i contenuti minimi che devono essere inclusi nel singolo Piano di Parità sono indicati in modo esaustivo.
      • E’ introdotta un’analisi della sotto-rappresentazione femminile in azienda quale tema da includere nel Piano.
      • La valutazione che le imprese devono compiere in fase di elaborazione del Piano di Parità deve essere oggetto di negoziazione con il rappresentante legale dei lavoratori.
      • È istituito un Registro dei Piano di Parità delle imprese, nel quale vanno iscritti tutti i Piani di Parità adottato dalle imprese, indipendentemente dal numero di lavoratori occupati.

      L’RDL 6/2019 introduce peraltro una nuova formulazione dell’articolo 28 dello Statuto dei Lavoratori, la quale sancisce l’obbligo per le imprese di conformarsi al principio della parità retributiva tra uomini e donne, stabilendo una serie di misure e obblighi a carico delle imprese, al fine di garantire l’effettivo rispetto della parità retributiva.

      In particolare, le nuove misure inserite nell’articolo 28 dello Statuto sono le seguenti:

      • Il testo definisce la nozione di “lavoro di pari valore“, al fine di promuovere un criterio unico ed eliminare ogni dubbio al riguardo.
      • Le imprese sono tenute a mantenere un Registro delle Retribuzioni, riportando i valori medi delle retribuzioni, delle componenti retributive supplementari e delle percezioni extra-salariali del proprio personale, differenziando i dati per genere e distribuendoli per gruppi professionali, categorie professionali o posizioni di lavoro di pari valore.
      • Il Registro delle Retribuzioni dovrà essere reso accessibile al rappresentante legale dei lavoratori.
      • Nelle imprese che occupano almeno 50 lavoratori con una retribuzione media relativa ai lavoratori di un genere superiore di almeno il 25% rispetto a quella dell’altro, è necessario inserire nel Registro delle Retribuzioni una motivazione di tale disparità, certificando che essa è dovuta a ragioni diverse dal genere dei lavoratori.

      L’inosservanza degli obblighi in materia di parità e, in particolare, di quelli attinenti al Piano di Parità ed alla parità retributiva tra uomini e donne, può comportare l’applicazione di pesanti sanzioni da parte dell’Ispettorato del Lavoro e della “Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social”.

      On 28 May 2019 the Dutch Parliament adopted new employment legislation: The Balanced Labour Market Act (‘Wet Arbeidsmarkt in Balans’), hereinafter the WAB. The most important changes are discussed below.

      New cumulation ground for dismissal

      The legislation introduces a new ground for dismissal. This makes it a bit easier for employers to dismiss employees. Dismissal will also be possible if there is a sum of circumstances, the so-called cumulation ground. Now the employer must fully comply with 1 of the 8 grounds for dismissal. This new ground gives the court the opportunity to combine circumstances. The employee can receive an extra half transitional allowance (on top of the current statutory transitional allowance) if the cumulation ground is used for the dismissal.

      Severance: Transitional allowance

      The new act arranges that employees will have the right to a transitional allowance immediately from the first start of the employment contract, instead of only after two years.

      The accrual of transitional allowance is reduced in case of long-term employment. The accrual for everyone, regardless of the age of the employee, is one third of a monthly salary.

      There will be a scheme for small employers to compensate the transitional allowance if they have to end their business due to retirement or illness.

      Extending the scope of the chain of employment agreements

      The current period after which successive fixed-term employment contracts legally change into an employment contract for an indefinite period is two years. The WAB broadens the succession of temporary contracts. Under the WAB it will still be possible to enter into a maximum of three temporary contracts. The maximum period of fixed-term contracts will be extended to three years. This chain of successive fixed-term employment contracts can be broken by an interruption period of six months.

      It is possible to shorten the interruption period between a chain of fixed-term contracts in a Collective Bargaining Agreement from six to three months if there is recurring temporary work that can be done for a maximum of nine months a year.

      An exception to the chain provision will be made for temporary workers in primary education who replace employees who became ill.

      Call agreement

      A new definition is introduced in Article 7: 628a paragraph 9 of the Dutch Civil Code: the ‘call agreement’. In call agreements the number of working hours per period and the salary are not established upfront but can vary depending on for example the amount of work available. Under the WAB an employee must be called by the employer at least four days in advance. If the employer does not follow this regulation, the employee is not obligated to come in for work. Call workers retain the right to wages for the period for which they were called if the work is cancelled less than four days in advance. The employer is obliged to offer the call worker an employment contract after a year for the average number of hours that he has worked in the previous twelve months. In Collective Bargaining Agreements alternative arrangements can be made under certain conditions.

      Payrolling

      Payroll employees will receive the same legal position and primary and secondary employment conditions as employees who are employed by the employer.

      Payroll employees are also entitled to an ‘adequate’ pension scheme.

      Unemployment benefit premium differentiation

      In order to make employment contracts for an indefinite period of time more attractive for employers, the WAB arranges for an unemployment benefit premium differentiation between permanent and temporary contracts. A lower premium will apply for employment contracts for an indefinite period of time and a higher premium for fixed-term employment contracts.

      Commencing date

      The intended commencing date of the WAB is 1 January 2020. The right to an adequate pension scheme for payrolling starts on 1 January 2021.

      The author of this post is Regine de Wit.

      10 practical aspects to consider for an adequate timing

      Meanwhile similar legal standards apply in most industrialized countries if an employment relationship shall be terminated; however, in every jurisdiction some specifics still need to be considered. The following ten aspects may be a first general guideline for the termination of an employment contract in Germany, in particular regarding its timing.

      1. In some cases notice needs to be given within a two-week period

      In case of gross misconduct an employer may be entitled to terminate an employment relationship forthwith. However, if notice of termination is not served to the employee within two weeks after acknowledgement of the respective facts, this right is forfeited.

      1. Notice has to be given in writing

      The notice has to be signed by the legal representative of the employer and delivered to the employee. Neither a transmission by facsimile nor an email with a scanned copy is sufficient. If the representative is not on site, timing may become an essential aspect of the termination process.

      1. Ordinary dismissal may be prohibited by a collective bargaining agreement

      Collective bargaining agreements often provide a ban on ordinary dismissal under certain circumstances (e.g. based on the age of the employee). A careful assessment of all applicable collective bargaining agreements before a termination is therefore indispensable.

      1. Insufficient information of the works councils may lead to an invalid termination

      The establishment of a works council is not mandatory in Germany. However, if it is established, it needs to be notified and heard before every termination of an employment contract. The notification must contain a sufficient description of the grounds for the termination, otherwise the termination may be deemed invalid. Having been notified, the works council has one week (in some cases: three days) to object. Any termination before such term without consent of the works council would be deemed invalid as well. Timing may therefore become again an essential aspect of the termination process.

      1. General dismissal protection is related to seniority and size of the establishment

      General dismissal protection is basically applicable in establishments with more than 10 employees. Exceptions may apply in favour of those employees whose employment relationships commenced already before 1st January 2004. In addition, the respective employee needs to have at least a seniority of six month. If these criteria are met, the termination has to be justified by operational reasons, misconduct or personal incapacity as set out in the Dismissal Protection Act.

      1. Some terminations may need prior permission

      Irrespective of the application of the afore mentioned Dismissal Protection Act some kind of terminations (e.g. employees on parental leave) may need a special permission of the works council, the Labour Court or the respective public authority as applicable. These procedures may last from some days up to two years.

      1. There is no general claim for severance payment in case of an unfair dismissal

      Aside from those agreed in termination agreements there is no general claim for severance payment in case of an unfair dismissal. In general, the statutory remedy will only be reinstatement and back pay. Only under certain circumstances each party may apply for the termination of the employment relationship and a severance payment in front of the Labour Court. However, in most of the cases parties end up in a voluntary termination agreement.

      1. Non-competes may lead to extensive payments and cannot be withdrawn forthwith unilaterally without cause

      A binding covenant to non-compete leads to a compensation payment of at least 50 % of the former salary for every month of its duration. Even in case of a justified termination it may only be terminated with a notice period of one year. However, both parties may agree upon its immediate suspension in a termination agreement.

      1. Any termination agreement has to be in written form as well

      Also a termination agreement needs to fulfil the same formal requirements as set out already above under point 2. Again, if the representative is not on site, timing may become an essential aspect of the bargaining process.

      1. The forfeiture clause of a termination agreement may not cover all claims 

      Termination agreements often contain general forfeiture clauses at their end, covering also those potential claims which have not been explicitly mentioned or identified by the parties. However, some claims (e.g. pension claims) may not be covered by such a (general) forfeiture clause.

      Please note that these ten aspects contain general information only. Further details as well as possible exceptions therefore need to be checked on a case-by-case basis by a professional advisor.

       

      Tha author of this post is Alexander Lentz

      L’imprenditore che intenda concentrarsi esclusivamente sul proprio core business ha la possibilità di ricorrere ad altri imprenditori, a cui affidare la realizzazione di tutte quelle opere e di quei servizi comunque necessari per la gestione dell’impresa.

      Il termine tecnico che si utilizza per definire un tale modus operandi è quello di “esternalizzazione” di parte dell’attività imprenditoriale e, solitamente, l’accordo che regola tale tipologia di collaborazione è un contratto di appalto, vale a dire il contratto con il quale una parte si impegna a compiere un’opera o un servizio a favore di un’altra e verso un corrispettivo in denaro.

      Esempio di contratto di appalto d’opera potrebbe essere il contratto con il quale un’impresa edile si obbliga a costruire un palazzo per una società immobiliare; esempio di appalto di servizi potrebbe essere il contratto che si stipula con un’impresa di pulizie per la pulizia del proprio stabile.

      L’appalto ha per oggetto una prestazione di “fare” nell’ambito della quale un soggetto, detto appaltatore, si impegna a svolgere un’attività determinata, fornendo ed organizzando i mezzi necessari e gestendo la realizzazione a proprio rischio; è poi necessario che l’attività sia organizzata in forma di impresa e che quindi l’appaltatore sia, esso stesso, un imprenditore.

      In Italia lo strumento dell’appalto ha sempre avuto grande diffusione ed utilizzo e da sempre rappresenta lo strumento privilegiato per esternalizzare attività poco remunerative nell’ambito di realtà imprenditoriali complesse: obiettivo di chi ricorre all’appalto è quello di realizzare efficienza in termini di risorse, sia economiche (riduzione dei costi) che materiali (riduzione di personale e delle responsabilità connesse alla sua gestione).

      Quanto sopra vale anche per gli imprenditori esteri che gestiscono o decidono di avviare un’attività in Italia: l’appalto rappresenta un ottimo strumento per delegare ad altri soggetti, in loco e con una specifica expertise in materia, la gestione di problematiche complesse quali: l’ottenimento di autorizzazioni pubbliche, l’approvvigionamento di particolari materie prime, il reclutamento sul territorio di risorse umane qualificate.

      L’esternalizzazione della attività non è un fenomeno omogeneo e le esigenze che spesso si presentano in concreto sono suscettibili di prestarsi anche a differenti soluzioni, a seconda dell’oggetto della prestazione, della tipologia e delle caratteristiche del committente o della particolare natura degli interessi coinvolti.

      Proprio in virtù delle suddette particolarità molto spesso, in luogo del contratto di appalto, l’imprenditore fa ricorso al contratto di subfornitura.

      Con il contratto di subfornitura un imprenditore si impegna a effettuare, per conto di una impresa committente, lavorazioni su prodotti semilavorati o su materie prime forniti dalla committente medesima, o si impegna a fornire all’impresa prodotti o servizi destinati ad essere incorporati o comunque ad essere utilizzati nell’ambito dell’attività economica del committente o nella produzione di un bene complesso, in conformità a progetti esecutivi, conoscenze tecniche e tecnologiche, modelli o prototipi forniti dall’impresa committente.

      Sintetizzando e forse banalizzando fiorenti dibattiti dottrinali e giurisprudenziali, potremmo dire che molto spesso la differenza tra un appalto di servizi e la “subfornitura” consiste nel fatto che in caso di subfornitura le attività oggetto del contratto vengono svolte su materiali del committente e/o consistono nella realizzazione di beni o servizi funzionali al processo produttivo del committente; in ogni caso, la subfornitura comporta la “dipendenza tecnologica” (ed anche economica) del subfornitore nei confronti del committente.

      Proprio il decentramento e la dissociazione che l’esternalizzazione di processi e attività realizza tra il “gestore” dell’attività esternalizzata ed il fruitore finale della stessa, suscita da sempre grande attenzione da parte del legislatore italiano.

      Attenzione finalizzata a tutelare soprattutto i dipendenti coinvolti nell’attività esternalizzata in caso di eventi nefasti idonei a privarli di garanzie legali di cui, invece, possono continuare a godere i dipendenti dell’appaltante committente (pensiamo ad esempio alla sofferenza finanziaria dell’appaltatore/subfornitore, o addirittura al suo coinvolgimento in procedure concorsuali, da cui derivi il mancato pagamento di retribuzioni e contributi).

      Per tali ragioni, ormai a far data dal 2003, il legislatore italiano ha introdotto un oneroso regime di solidarietà tra committente e appaltatore, nonché con ciascuno degli eventuali subappaltatori che, entro il limite di due anni dalla cessazione dell’appalto, sono obbligati in solido a corrispondere ai lavoratori i trattamenti retributivi, comprese le quote di trattamento di fine rapporto, nonché i contributi previdenziali e i premi assicurativi dovuti in relazione al periodo di esecuzione del contratto di appalto.

      Sino al mese di dicembre del 2017 la giurisprudenza di merito era consolidata nel ritenere che il regime della responsabilità solidale fosse applicabile esclusivamente all’appalto di servizi e non alla subfornitura. Circostanza questa che rendeva il ricorso alla subfornitura potenzialmente meno oneroso per il committente.

      Con sentenza n. 254 del 6 dicembre scorso, tuttavia, la prospettiva è stata completamente ribaltata dalla Corte Costituzionale che chiamata a pronunciarsi in materia ha stabilito l’applicazione estensiva del principio della responsabilità solidale anche tra committente e subfornitore.

      La sentenza parte dall’analisi della nota questione giurisprudenziale circa la configurazione giuridica del contratto di subfornitura e, in particolare, circa l’autonomia o meno del contratto di fornitura rispetto al contratto di appalto.

      Senza entrare nel merito del dibattito giurisprudenziale esistente, la Corte Costituzionale sostiene che, al di là dell’orientamento seguito quanto all’assimilazione o meno della subfornitura al contratto di appalto, è possibile operare l’estensione della responsabilità del committente/appaltatore ai crediti di lavoro dei dipendenti del subfornitore.

      Ciò in quanto l’introduzione della norma sulla responsabilità solidale in ipotesi di appalto, non può giustificare l’esclusione della medesima garanzia nei confronti dei dipendenti del subfornitore, atteso che la tutela del soggetto che assicura un’attività lavorativa indiretta non può non estendersi a tutti i livelli di decentramento.

      Sulla base di tali considerazioni, dunque, il principio della responsabilità solidale va correttamente interpretato nel senso che il committente/appaltatore è obbligato in solido (anche) con il subfornitore, relativamente ai crediti lavorativi, contributivi e assicurativi dei dipendenti di questi, al pari quindi di quanto lo è verso i dipendenti del subappaltatore.

      In sostanza il committente risponde direttamente, salvo successiva rivalsa, per le rivendicazioni economiche avanzate dai dipendenti dell’appaltatore, del subappaltatore e del subfornitore e di tutti i lavoratori che dovessero essere stati utilizzati nell’attività esternalizzata in relazione a: i) crediti retributivi maturati durante il periodo di correlazione tra committente ed impresa che ha eseguito i lavori, ivi compresi, “pro – quota”, quelli relativi al trattamento di fine rapporto; e ii) contributi previdenziali e premi assicurativi dovuti per il periodo di esecuzione della prestazione.

      Il lavoratore può chiedere direttamente al committente il pagamento di quanto maturato nei confronti del proprio datore. Il committente, chiamato in giudizio, non può mai chiedere l’escussione del coobbligato in solido: deve pagare salva l’azione di regresso.

      Il committente quindi, nonostante l’esigenza iniziale fosse quella di fare efficienza e ridurre costi, può trovarsi esposto ad un rischio economico molto maggiore rispetto al costo risparmiato, soprattutto se le rivendicazioni economiche riguardano situazioni non controllabili a priori: facciamo riferimento ad esempio, all’eventuale personale utilizzato “in maniera irregolare” dall’appaltatore/subfornitore, oppure alle rivendicazioni connesse allo svolgimento di mansioni superiori, od anche alla richiesta di lavoro straordinario al di fuori dei parametri di legge.

      Esistono naturalmente sistemi e meccanismi idonei a contenere il rischio o, comunque, idonei a garantire al committente maggiore controllo sul corretto funzionamento della filiera esternalizzata.

      Tra questi, ad esempio, alla possibilità di prevedere contrattualmente strumenti di tutela economica quali fideiussioni e manleve.

      Ma esiste anche la possibilità di implementare, sempre nel contratto, un adeguato sistema di controllo sulla corretta gestione del personale nonché sull’erogazione di retribuzioni, contributi e premi assicurativi.

      Alla luce di quanto sopra, concludiamo individuando nella figura del consulente esperto in materia di diritto del lavoro il miglior supporto per l’imprenditore che intenda avventurarsi in maniera consapevole e sicura in un processo di esternalizzazione.

      L’autore di questo articolo è Domenica Cotroneo.

      Il distacco transnazionale di lavoratori è quel meccanismo attraverso cui le imprese di uno Stato membro prestano servizi in un altro Stato membro inviando direttamente i propri dipendenti nel territorio di quest’ultimo.

      Nel corso degli ultimi 20 anni tale fenomeno è cresciuto in maniera rilevante a livello europeo, soprattutto a seguito dell’ingresso nell’Unione dei Paesi dell’est, che avevano – e in parte continuano ad avere – un costo del lavoro sensibilmente più basso di quello degli altri Stati membri.

      Il fenomeno è stato quindi oggetto di diversi interventi del legislatore europeo e di quelli nazionali, nonché di alcune rilevanti decisioni della Corte di Giustizia. Esso si pone infatti in relazione con diversi diritti fondamentali riconosciuti dall’Unione e richiede un equilibrato bilanciamento degli interessi in gioco.

      Occorre garantire le libertà di circolazione di lavoratori,  capitali e merci e, in particolare, la libera prestazione dei servizi (art. 56 TFUE), salvaguardando al contempo la leale concorrenza tra le imprese e la tutela dei lavoratori. Il legislatore comunitario intervenne sul tema con la Direttiva 96/71/CE (attuata in Italia col D. Lgs. 72/2000), poi integrata dalla Direttiva 2014/67/UE (attuata in Italia col D. Lgs. 136/2016).

      Il legislatore europeo e quello nazionale perseguono con le citate disposizioni due principali obiettivi:

      – contrastare i distacchi fittizi attraverso società di comodo, le cosiddette letterbox company, garantendo equilibrio concorrenziale a livello europeo;

      – garantire uniformità di trattamento e di tutela ai lavoratori coinvolti, impedendo fenomeni di ‘dumping sociale’.

      Per raggiungere questi obiettivi viene rafforzato il sistema di cooperazione amministrativa tra le diverse autorità ispettive nazionali,  vengono individuati criteri predefiniti per la valutazione dell’autenticità del distacco e vengono stabilite condizioni minime da garantire ai lavoratori.

      Per valutare l’autenticità del distacco, l’art. 4 della direttiva 2014/67/UE (recepito nell’art. 3 della legge italiana) indica alcune caratteristiche da prendere in considerazione con riferimento alle imprese coinvolte e ai lavoratori distaccati.

      Per le imprese sono considerati rilevanti i seguenti elementi:

      1. a) il luogo in cui l’impresa ha la propria sede legale e amministrativa, utilizza uffici, paga imposte e contributi previdenziali ed è iscritta alla camera di commercio;
      2. b) il luogo in cui i lavoratori sono assunti e quello da cui sono distaccati;
      3. c) la legge applicabile ai contratti stipulati dall’impresa con i suoi lavoratori e con i suoi clienti;
      4. d) il luogo in cui l’impresa esercita la propria attività economica principale e in cui è occupato il suo personale amministrativo;
      5. e) il numero dei contratti eseguiti o l’ammontare del fatturato realizzato dall’impresa nello Stato membro di stabilimento, tenendo conto della specificità delle piccole e medie imprese e di quelle di nuova costituzione.

      Per i lavoratori vengono prese in considerazione queste circostanze:

      1. a) lo svolgimento dell’attività lavorativa per un periodo di tempo limitato in un altro Stato membro;
      2. b) la data di inizio del distacco;
      3. c) l’esercizio abituale dell’attività lavorativa nello Stato di provenienza;
      4. d) il ritorno a prestare attività lavorativa nello Stato cui è stato distaccato;
      5. e) la natura e le modalità di svolgimento dell’attività;
      6. f) il rimborso da parte del datore di lavoro distaccante delle spese di viaggio, vitto o alloggio  e le modalità di pagamento;
      7. g) eventuali periodi precedenti in cui la medesima attività è stata svolta dallo stesso o da un altro lavoratore distaccato.

      Tutte queste circostanze devono essere considerate nel loro complesso, nessuna è di per sé decisiva e spetta alle autorità nazionali la valutazione finale dell’autenticità o meno del distacco.

      L’eventuale accertamento di un distacco fittizio determina rilevanti sanzioni amministrative a carico sia dell’impresa distaccante che di quella utilizzatrice, nonché la loro corresponsabilità per i crediti dei lavoratori.

      Il legislatore italiano ha inoltre rafforzato tale previsione: in simmetria con quanto previsto per i casi di intermediazione illecita di mano d’opera, ha infatti stabilito che, se il distacco non risulta autentico, “il lavoratore è considerato a tutti gli effetti alle dipendenze del soggetto che ne ha utilizzato la prestazione” (art. 3 legge italiana).

      Ai fini della tutela dei lavoratori e dell’equilibrio concorrenziale, l’art. 3 della direttiva 96/71/CE (art. 4 della legge italiana) stabilisce che, qualunque sia la legislazione applicabile al rapporto di lavoro, gli Stati membri devono far sì che ai lavoratori distaccati sul loro territorio siano garantite, per il periodo del distacco, condizioni di lavoro analoghe a quelle dei lavoratori nazionali. In particolare, i lavoratori distaccati devono godere di un trattamento equivalente in relazione a:

      – periodi massimi di lavoro e minimi di riposo;

      – durata minima delle ferie annuali retribuite;

      – tariffe minime salariali;

      – sicurezza e salute sul lavoro;

      – tutela per lavoratrici madri, bambini e giovani;

      – parità di trattamento uomo/donna e principi di non discriminazione.

      Dal punto di vista pratico, l’aspetto di più complessa valutazione riguarda le tariffe minime salariali. Nei diversi paesi dell’Unione esse sono infatti definite in maniera diversa, da fonti diverse (legge/fonti amministrative/contratti collettivi) e sono composte da molte voci, non sempre sovrapponibili.

      D’altro canto, gli aspetti economici sono determinanti per imprese e lavoratori per valutare l’opportunità e la convenienza del distacco.

      Proprio per queste ragioni, la Corte di Giustizia ha chiarito che il confronto tra le diverse tariffe nazionali deve essere condotto confrontando l’importo complessivo e non le singole voci salariali. La Corte ha inoltre precisato che il confronto deve essere limitato alle voci retributive in senso stretto, cioè in diretta relazione con la prestazione, escludendo per esempio i premi supplementari. Infine la giurisprudenza comunitaria ha chiarito che le voci retributive da prendere in considerazione devono essere accessibili e chiare per il datore di lavoro distaccante.

      Da ultimo le disposizioni europee impongono agli Stati membri di consentire ai lavoratori distaccati sul loro territorio l’accesso agli strumenti di tutela, anche giudiziaria, predisposti per i lavoratori nazionali.

      A questo fine, in Italia si è esplicitamente prevista la facoltà, per i lavoratori distaccati, di agire sia in sede amministrativa che giudiziale (art. 5 legge italiana).

      In Spagna il licenziamento viene classificato individuale o collettivo, a seconda del numero di lavoratori assoggettati a tale misura.

      L’articolo 51 dello Statuto dei Lavoratori considera “licenziamento collettivo” l’estinzione del rapporto di lavoro causata da motivazioni economiche, tecniche, organizzative o di produzione quando, nel periodo di novanta giorni, coinvolga: (i) almeno dieci lavoratori di un’impresa con meno di 100 dipendenti; (ii) il dieci per cento dei lavoratori in una impresa che abbia tra cento e trecento dipendenti; (iii) trenta lavoratori nelle imprese con più di trecento dipendenti.

      Il licenziamento potrà essere impugnato in sede giudiziale, entro 20 giorni lavorativi e potrà essere dichiarato legittimo (procedente), illegittimo (improcedente) o nullo.

      Il licenziamento si considera legittimo quando è confermato l’inadempimento da parte del lavoratore contestato dall’imprenditore nella comunicazione del licenziamento e sono stati soddisfatti i requisiti formali, quali (i) la comunicazione per iscritto al lavoratore; (ii) una sufficiente descrizione dei fatti che hanno determinato il licenziamento e (iii) l’indicazione della data a partire della quale il licenziamento sarà efficace.

      Sarà dichiarato illegittimo il licenziamento privo dei requisiti citati nel paragrafo precedente.

      Il licenziamento è nullo nei seguenti casi: (i) violazione dei diritti fondamentali o libertà pubblica; (ii) il lavoratore è una vittima di violenza di genere; (iii) salvo che si dimostri la giusta causa, nei casi di: lavoratrici incinte, con permesso di maternità, paternità o allattamento, o con riduzione della giornata lavorativa per curare un minore di dodici anni o una persona con una incapacità fisica, psichica o sensoriale.

      Nel caso in cui il licenziamento sia dichiarato illegittimo, l’imprenditore entro cinque giorni dovrà scegliere se reintegrare il lavoratore nel posto di lavoro (e pagargli le mensilità trascorse tra il licenziamento e la notificazione della sentenza, i cosiddetti salarios de tramitación) oppure pagargli l’indennità, il cui importo dipende dalla durata del rapporto, come si analizzerà di seguito. Nel caso in cui il lavoratore licenziato sia un rappresentante sindacale, la scelta tra le due opzioni spetterà al lavoratore e non all’imprenditore.

      Se il licenziamento è dichiarato nullo, l’imprenditore avrà l’obbligo di reintegrare il lavoratore nel posto di lavoro e potrà essere condannato al risarcimento dei danni assieme al pagamento delle mensilità trascorse tra il licenziamento e la notifica della sentenza.

      Come accennato in precedenza, l’indennità dovuta al lavoratore (alternativa al reintegro per i licenziamenti illegittimi) dipende dal momento in cui è iniziato il rapporto di lavoro.

      L’indennità da pagare nel caso del licenziamento di un lavoratore assunto dopo il 12 febbraio 2012, sarà pari a 33 giorni di retribuzione per ogni anno lavorato.

      Nel caso in cui il lavoratore licenziato sia stato assunto prima del 12 febbraio 2012, l’indennità verrà calcolata come segue:

      • per il periodo trascorso tra la firma del contratto e il 12 febbraio 2012, l’indennità è pari a 45 giorni di retribuzione per ogni anno di rapporto;
      • sarà pari a 33 giorni di retribuzione per ogni anno lavorato dopo il 12 febbraio 2012.

      In ogni caso l’indennità non potrà ammontare a più di 720 giorni di retribuzione, salvo il caso in cui, dal calcolo dell’indennità del periodo precedente il 12 febbraio 2012, risultasse un numero di giorni superiore a 720, nel quale l’indennità non potrà essere superiore a quarantadue mensilità.

      Inoltre è importante ricordare che l’indennità in caso di licenziamento è esente da qualunque imposta fino a 180.000 euro. Per la cifra superiore, la tassazione sarà parificata ai redditi di lavoro, con una riduzione del 30% nel caso di rapporto di lavoro terminato da almeno due anni.

      Latvia - Legalmondo

      Latvia – Establishing a company
      • Diritto societario
      • Lettonia

      Germany – Termination of an employment relationship

      2 Maggio 2018

      • Germania
      • Lavoro

      Today during Covid–19 circumstances Gig economy approach has become more necessity rather than theoretical possibility. But still transformation of Latvian business and employment market does not run so smooth. Why so?

      At the end of year 2019 the State Labour Inspectorate of Latvia in cooperation with private partners released results of a research on new forms of employment presence and potential in Latvia (http://www.vdi.gov.lv/files/jnf_gala_zinojums.pdf). The results of this research as well of other international researches are rather controversial as do not conform to the real situation in the country.

      Although the aforementioned researches claim that employers in Latvia are supporters of old-style employment and are not willing to change the practice, in fact the laws of Latvia in effect do not provide flexibility on the approach of employment.

      Covid-19 has badly hit a lot of economies, and actually highlighted the largest challenges – employers to save their business would like to pay less, whereas employees need flexibility as they are required to work remotely and combine their private and work lives.

      In this article an analysis of how general conditions of employment applicable today correspond to frame of main five aspects of a Gig economy will be provided.

      Employment “one to one” or “one to many”

      Gig economy considers that traditional employment has no longer place in our world. The employment should be available among one employer and many employees, many employers and many employees or one employee and many employers, thus employment being in each contractual relations part time, nevertheless all employees are jointly and severally liable for the result of work.

      Labour Law of Latvia keeps traditions of employment – one employer and one employee. Likewise part time work is permitted just in statutorily listed cases like to replace an employee in long term absence, in case of increase of the workload in the company, in emergency cases, and in certain areas like culture, sports, banking, education and diplomacy. Moreover, length of a fixed-term employment may not exceed 5 years in total (including extensions). As a result of this majority of employments are open ended.

      In order to solve the burden imposed by law, employers often use potential employees as external service providers based on a Service Agreement in this manner imitating self employment. Self employment for a payor is less expensive tax wise, which led authorities to introduce limiting measures for flexibility of entrepreneurs.
      In the Law on Personal Income Tax criteria of employment per se where introduced. Namely, an agreement with an individual can be deemed as contractual relationships subject to payment of salary and accordingly payroll if at least one of the following conditions has been ascertained:

      • the individual has economic dependence upon the party to whom he/she provides services;
      • lack of assumption of financial risks in the fulfilment of work or no liability in respect to lost debtor debts;
      • integration of the contracted individual into the company to which services are provided (e.g. existence of a work or recreational areas, a duty to observe internal rules of the company);
      • availability of holidays and paid leave in accordance with schedules of the company;
      • work shall be performed under management or control of the other contracting party – the customer, and the individual is deprived of possibility to involve in the service provision his/ her personnel or sub-contractors; or
      • the individual is not owner of the assets used while rendering services to the company.

      Respectively in case the State Revenue Service of Latvia (tax authority) detects presence of the criteria listed, it shall be entitled to reclassify the contractual relations of the seemingly independent parties into employment relations as a result of which remuneration paid to the individual would be subject to full payroll as any other salary gained on basis of Employment Agreement. The tax expense threshold the companies playing with by out of box employment results in significant difference:

      • payroll in case of employment – progressive personal income tax between 20% to 23% depending on the income (at certain level the annual income of an individual may though be subject to maximum rate of the personal income tax – 31.4%); social security contributions of 35.09%; majority of these expenses being on the employer’s shoulders; whereas
      • taxes applicable in case of self-employment – progressive personal income tax between 20% to 31.4% depending on the income; social security contributions of 32.15%, basis of these compulsory contributions being a freely chosen income; in this case if the contracted individual is a registered economic operator – the taxes are all his/her liability, whereas if the individual has not registered with tax authorities independent economic activity, the taxes shall be withheld at the moment of disbursement of the remuneration and paid into the State budget by the company contracting the individual.

      In circumstances of Covid–19 the traditional employment scenarios chosen by entrepreneurs due to rather strict statutory rules have heavily impacted operation of businesses as employers had to either dismiss their employees or let them in idleness with crisis management allowance established by the State as support during Covid–19.

      The outcome showed that applying of different type of “employment” structures, like contracting specialists on the need to basis or crowdsourcing of employees among numerous employers could have facilitated challenges the employers face today in many ways – provide availability of different specialists for the project/ time period required, limit expenses in respect to the employees whom the companies were forced to let in idleness, and alike, all of this still keeping the business running.

      Employment volatility as new formula for flexibility

      As described earlier, present requirements of the Labour Law of Latvia require employment relationships to be based on clear and sustainable rules thus ensuring predictable and long term support to the employees, both in terms of employment and social security.
      The strict approach is even more secured by strict statutory conditions and notice periods under which an employee can be dismissed:

      With a notice of immediate effect:

      • while performing work the employee has acted unlawfully and therefore has lost trust of the employer;
      • while performing the work employee is in a state of intoxication (e.g. alcohol, drugs, other); or
      • the employee is unable to perform the contracted work due to a state of health, and this is confirmed by a medical opinion;

      With a 10 days notice:

      • in case employee has without justifiable reason materially violated the contracted work order;
      • while performing the work the employee has acted contrary to good morals, and such action is incompatible with the continuation of the employment;
      • the employee has grossly violated work safety rules and endangered safety and health of other persons; or
      • due to temporary incapacity of the employee for work for more than 6 and up to 12 months;

      With a one month notice:

      • if the employee is in lack of sufficient professional skills to perform the contracted work;
      • an employee previously employed in the particular position has been reinstated to work;
      • in case of staff redundancy (presuming that employer will not hire immediately new employee in same position); or
      • in case the employer is being liquidated.

      Having seen the list of statutory conditions one would definitely agree that only few circumstances are of a regular character, meaning can be actually applied, whereas the rest are seldom met. Sure there is also available an exception out of this strongly established frame – to terminate employment without any specific reason if the employee and employer can reach a mutual agreement. However that may be a challenge – employees are not obliged to participate in negotiations with employers and can simply walk away.

      So how much of volatility and flexibility can be reached in such strongly fixed statutory frame?
      Practically not much.

      Accordingly under Covid–19 circumstances companies have applied staff redundancy condition more than ever, which may not have been necessary if employment structures would be more flexible. Part of employees today let in idleness have started to look for new job even before the actual dismissal, because perception of stability and predictability is the driving force. This actually showing that although employment of a periodical character would not provide long term income and social security, with this approach the employees of Latvia would have been more used and resistant to fast changing circumstances and periods of actual idleness (meaning also – had some savings).

      It appears that development of economy and business approaches runs on a speed of light, whereas statutory regulation does not manage to follow in those footsteps. The question is though do we need today law and regulation for each detail, if in practice changes come into our lives so fast. Maybe a better solution would be regulation on general principles and practically providing field of different approaches and solutions which would fit more each business segment and keep economy running also in such extraordinary circumstances as Covid-19.

      A close cooperation among numerous employers

      The Gig economy concept provides for presence of different types of cooperation among employers and employees, including crowdsourcing of personnel, sharing of working spaces, liaising business operations and sharing liability in respect to work performed.

      Under present requirements of employment and tax laws of Latvia having shared workforce is rather complicated. The statutory restrictions keep accountability of employers at a very high level thus at the end of the day the approach of traditional employment – “one employer and one employee” – on Latvian market appears to be the easiest. Likewise the strict statutory rules have developed certain culture also on the employee side – “I have one master” seems the most correct and secure way and any other solutions are simply out of discussion.

      As an example, it took years for the Latvian market to admit that employees can be also leased out. Due to long term difficulties with practical applicability of this concept and contractual split of liabilities between lessor and lessee in respect to the employee (being those days at full discretion of the contractual parties), not always being favourable for the employee, in year 2011 changes to the Labour Law were introduced. The amendments established precise definition on what a lease of employees is, the scope of liability and split of duties among the parties resulting therefrom. However not without creating new burdens.

      The statutory protection level of employees on the Latvian market has always been very high and same became applicable in case of lease of workforce. No doubt employees have to be protected; however employee lease is a slightly different way of employment and therefore the regulation in place is still not always compatible with differentiation of employment schemes possible. Last but not least, another aspect complicating applicability of lease of employees is that lease of workforce is set as licensable operation. The procedure to obtain license is complicate enough and involves preparation of paper loads, moreover under statutory requirements a license must be obtained even if the employees are leased between related companies. Thus benefits of this employment structure are certainly disputable.

      Crowdsourcing of employees is the next step; however theoretically possible already today. Individuals could become self employed specialists and enter into contracts with different companies, thus avoiding of the risk under Law on Personal Income Tax (described in this article earlier) to be recognized as employee of any of these companies provided of course that the individual assumes certain financial risks and does job with his/her own tools in majority. It can be considered also as mitigation of risks for both parties – the individual has certain financial and social security stability, as losing one customer would not heavily impact the individual’s income and life quality; whereas on the company’s side – expenses can be planned according to business plans and necessity. But not all individuals are today ready to work without strong supervision and assume full liability.

      Covid-19 showed that flexibility should be introduced. Moreover a plan on mitigation of risks and business sustainability are not just nice words, it is a must have plan to be updated constantly for the companies to be ready for extraordinary situations. Likewise stability the employees consider they have due to open ended “one master” employment are very volatile, the risks are always out there and nothing should be deemed as for granted.

      Nevertheless, pure employment issues are not the only challenges in the Gig economy approach.

      Remote and digital employment – the skills for the future

      Gig economy idea claims for flexibility and free choice of place to be, which for a traditional society like Latvia is a true challenge. Historically established traditions of frame and control in each aspect are still alive and part of the culture, whereas new generation which was born in years of independence already with their different view is considered as rebels.

      Labor Law of Latvia states ten mandatory terms and conditions to be included in each that Employment Agreements:

      • name, surname, ID number/ birth date, address of the employee; name, registration number, address of the employer;
      • starting date of the employment;
      • expected length of the employment (in case the agreement is concluded for certain period of time);
      • place of work and/ or in case employee will be required to perform work duties in different places, this must be clearly indicated;
      • the position employee is employed for indicating also code of the profession according to Classification of Professions established by the State;
      • amount of remuneration agreed and date of payment thereof;
      • contracted work time per day or per week;
      • length of the annual paid leave;
      • notice periods of the Employment Agreement;
      • indication to Collective Agreement and internal procedures and policies of the company applicable to the said employment.

      These mandatory aspects must be included in the agreement irrespective of whether they are statutorily fixed or can be changed upon agreement of the parties. Moreover, in case further changes in these terms shall be required the employer is obliged to inform the employee on that with one month prior written notice. Whereas coming into effect of the amendments to the agreement shall be absolutely subject to agreement between the parties or it triggers rights for the employer to unilaterally terminate employment (based though on staff reduction argument). Thus clear statement of where the work place is forms one of the key elements of the employment and changing it is rather inflexible.

      But it must be also taken into account that historically the concept of a fixed work place is connected to certain additional and consequential aspects. Namely, performance of work in the work place indicated in the Employment Agreement is solely subject to payment of salary and if applicable – compensation for overtime, as a general rule – not less than in amount of 100% of the hourly or daily salary rate set. Whereas work outside the work place established by the Employment Agreement may be deemed one of two business trip types and statutory rule is to provide additional protection to employees when they have to perform their work outside used place, especially if this is away from home:

      • Business trip A (komandējums) – a trip for a certain period of time based on order of the employer, to another location either inland or abroad to perform work duties or to promote qualification. This business trip is subject to compensation by the employer of daily allowance at least in the statutorily established amount, transportation and luggage expenses, expenses for accommodation, parking expenses, insurance expenses, participations fees at the events and alike;
      • Business trip B (darba brauciens) – work of the employee, if it takes place while travelling in accordance with the concluded Employment Agreement/ job description, inland or abroad, if the work involves regular/ systematic trips and change of location. This business trip is subject to compensation by the employer of slightly less expenses than in case of the business trip A – transportation expenses, expenses for accommodation, parking expenses, insurance expenses, expenses for transportation of luggage and few more.

      At the end of the day it is significant for the employer to precisely establish whether this is employment at another place as provides Employment Agreement or one of the business trips, accordingly precisely detecting which business trip type is applied as on this depends the overall amount of expenses to be compensated for the employee. And even more, certain aspects as for instance whether the employee can return to the residence place at the end of the day can decrease the amount of compensation to be paid. Accordingly applying of a fixed place of work may be financial wise more advantageous for the employer than flexibility of location for the employee.

      Another challenge of the work outside the office premises is compliance with work and health safety rules. When the work is performed in office premises of the employer it is mandatory obligation of the employer to ensure safe and healthy work conditions for its employees that including air conditions, work place suitable to spend hours in performing duties, safe and suitable tools for work and alike. Likewise the employer is in charge of running trainings for employees in this respect.

      Before extraordinary Covid–19 circumstances remote work was present in Latvia; however it was merely optional and applied in exceptional cases. Each case requiring ongoing remote work was true stress to employers, because the only way how to mitigate responsibility of the employer in respect to work safety was to conclude an additional agreement, with the employee probably stating that it has been initiative of the employee to work remotely and employer has agreed to that, thus the liability in respect to the work safety (and health) condition being transferred fully to the employee.

      Co-working spaces as a first change in culture had shaken not only the traditional approach of what a work place should be, but also the statutory frame. Due to various forms of employment becoming more and more relevant, including remote work, when the employee works at home or elsewhere outside the company, necessity for adaption of the work safety regulation to current trends became inevitable.
      As a result in October 2019 amendments to the Labour Protection Law were adopted.
      The new regulation coming into effect on July 1, 2020 finally declares what is a remote work, excluding therefrom work which is related to regular travelling. The new rules also establish obligation for the remote work performer to cooperate and exchange information with the employer in evaluation of work safety risks in the environment the employee is going to perform the work, if such circumstances can endanger or impact safety and health of the employee. The support in evaluation of the work safety must be provided by the employer irrespective of number of locations the employee would decide to perform the work at. And the employer will be responsible for the recordkeeping in respect to such work place evaluations. Nevertheless the part of law in respect to liability has not changed overall – the employer remains responsible for work and health safety at work of the persons employed/ contracted.

      It can be already today predicted that practicalities of the newly established approach will cause a lot of tricky and disputable situations. In a culture where employees are not keen to take responsibility, the new regulation will trigger employee claims to finance and ensure working conditions per individual choice and ambitions unless the employers will develop precise internal policies and procedures on conditions and equipment company deems sufficient and appropriate for the particular position in which the employee is employed.

      Hence the statutory regulation obviously needs more of development and tests in deployment before Gig economy approach can be deemed as fitting the culture and expectations of the society and aligning the statutory rules.

      For performance of the work duties especially information and communications technologies (ICT) are required

      And finally – under the Gig economy performance of work remotely would not be possible without proper gadgets – PCs, smartphones, tablets etc.

      When it comes to extraordinary circumstances like Covid-19 our very well digitalized society appears to be well skilled mainly in using digital social media, but as far as it concerns doing work, not yet so sophisticated. Lockdown discovered that a lot of inhabitants of Latvia have very poor ICT with limited functionality, low security level and even outdated. When using such equipment for performance of work duties the productivity is under question, cooperation of employees limps, reaching results takes longer time. But even more – data (especially confidential information) of the employer is endangered when poor ICT solutions are used.

      If we take a look at digitalization of Latvia, although not much internationally advertised, it is at a high level.
      Already today Latvian society has access to:

      • Latvia has one of the fastest internet connections in the world;
      • registration of corporate changes with the Company Register by submitting electronically signed documents (www.ur.gov.lv; www.latvija.lv);
      • complying with tax reporting requirements via electronic tool of the State Revenue Service, providing all communication with the tax authority also electronically (eds.vid.gov.lv);
      • signing majority of documents (public and private) electronically with secure digital signature and a time stamp (granted based on and connected with ID and passport of an individual) issued by LVRTC – one of the leading electronic communication service providers in Latvia (www.eparaksts.lv). This signature is recognized and can be combined with similar electronic signatures of other countries, e.g. Lithuania and Estonia. Even more – since some time mobile version of the secure electronic signature (and time stamp) is available, which means that any documents can be signed also in a smart phone;
      • notaries of Latvia perform their duties and execute documents electronically with secure digital signature and a time stamp;
      • State and majority of municipal authorities are welcoming electronic communication;

      and many more electronic solutions.

      Irrespective of that the mindset of “paper prevails over other solutions” is still there in society. Attack of Covid-19 literally pushed the society towards digitalization in mindset too and actually understanding that tools and solutions required for remote business handing and employment are already there, now we only need to understand what would be the procedures to correctly implement those in real time and every day, because:

      • the old processes employees and employers are used to, do not work anymore;
      • both parties – employees and employers lack clarity on how to manage work with no stress or at least at proportionate stress level;
      • the remote work requires new skills not only for employees but also for management. How about control over employee work, what are the ways to manage it if all the team is not in one room;
      • no matter how digitally developed is the country each individual is though on different level of development in this respect, and this becomes true challenge when it comes to day-to-day remote work and cooperation;
      • and last but not least – the employers have invested in tools and equipment within on prems concept, whereas remote work needs different type of investment, more developed tools and IT security guarantees.

      This means that each company needs an actual transformation plan irrespective of the business it operates in. The digitalization is inevitable, it is a rational optimization of resources used, development of new skills and taking each employee on a whole new level of professional performance – individually and team wise. For companies digitalization increases competitiveness and readiness to unexpected circumstances and sustainability of business operation.

      So summarizing all the aspects analyzed during this article, Covid-19 has made people think not only, what is actual value of the employment and how one can concurrently protect employees and its business, but also how much of processes we can transform in an e-approach immediately and where we still need know-how and investment.
      Transforming into a Gig economy requires much more than overnight meditation with one thought – this shall pass. It is a new way of living.

      On March 31, 2020 the details of emergency measures where shared in a press conference and the scheme was published simultaneously. This memo sets out the main lines of the NOW scheme.

      Loss of turnover

      Under the NOW scheme, employers can apply for an allowance for labour costs if they expect a loss of turnover of at least 20%. The loss of turnover of at least 20% must occur over a three-month period starting on the first day of the months March, April or May 2020. It must always relate to a consecutive period of three months.

      The turnover is compared with 25% of the turnover from January to December 2019.

      The loss of turnover is determined at group level. If a group as a whole has a loss of turnover of less than 20%, no compensation will be paid to any individual parts of that group that are still inactive. Net turnover is taken as the net turnover, i.e. the income from the supply of goods and services from the business of the legal entity less discounts and the like and tax levied on the turnover.

      Wages and salaries

      The employer must pay the wages to the employees in full, but can apply to the UWV (social security insurer for employees) for an allowance for labour costs. On the other hand, the employee must also be fully available to perform work.

      The NOW scheme also covers employees with employees with a flexible contract insofar as they continue to be employed and receive wages from the employer during the subsidy period. The wage bill of all employees with a social security wage (virtually all) are eligible for the subsidy. These are, for example, employees with a so-called fictitious employment contract for employee insurance, but not voluntarily insured persons.

      Wages up to € 9,538 gross per month are considered, the amount surpassing the same is not considered for the subsidy. Additional charges and costs such as employer contributions and employee contributions to pension and the accrual of holiday allowance are also compensated. A lump-sum surcharge for employer charges of 30% applies.

      Advance payment

       The advance payment provided under the NOW is, in principle, based on the wage bill for the January 2020 return period. If there are no wage data for January 2020, the UWV will assume November 2019. If there are no data for this period either, no subsidy can be granted.

      If the wage bill for the months March-April-May is lower, the amount of the subsidy will be reduced by 90% of the amount by which the wage bill fell. The settlement is an incentive to keep employees employed as much as possible for the hours they worked before the severe drop in turnover.

      Calculation

      The amount of the allowance for wage costs depends on the drop in turnover and amounts to a maximum of 90% of the wage bill. For example: If 100% of the turnover is lost, the allowance amounts to 90% of the wage and salary bill of the employer and if 50% of the turnover is lost, the allowance amounts to 45% of the wage and salary bill of the employer.

      Extension of the arrangement

      It was previously announced that the period of the allowance, which is 3 months, may be extended once for a further period of 3 months. The Cabinet now announces that this extension has not yet been decided; it will be decided before 1 June 2020, so that any second tranche will be in line with the first application period ending on 31 May 2020. In case of extension, further conditions may be added to the scheme.

      Prohibition of dismissal

      When applying on the grounds of the NOW, the employer undertakes in advance not to apply for dismissal on the grounds of business economics for his employees during the period for which the allowance is received. The employer is therefore expected not to apply to the UWV for permission to terminate an employment contract on the grounds of business economics in the period from 18 March to 31 May 2020 inclusive. The prohibition on dismissal does not apply to dismissal applications submitted to the UWV in the period from 1 March to 17 March 2020.

      If a request for dismissal is nevertheless made and this request is not withdrawn (or not withdrawn on time), a correction will be made when the subsidy is determined. When the subsidy is determined, the wages of the employees for whom dismissal has been requested will be determined. This wage is then increased by 50%. This wage plus the 50% increase is deducted from the total wage sum on which the final amount of the subsidy is based.

      Submitting the request

      The UWV will be charged with processing the application. The applications are expected to be submitted on 6 April next. The first advance payments will be made within 2 to 4 weeks. This advance payment will in any case amount to 80% of the grant.

      Questo articolo si propone di illustrare le nuove norme in materia di parità di genere introdotte dal RDL 6/2019 applicabili a tutte le tipologie di imprese (indipendentemente dal numero di dipendenti), ed in particolare alle imprese che occupino almeno 50 dipendenti.

      La principale novità in questo senso consiste in un obbligo a carico delle aziende con almeno 50 dipendenti di attuare un Piano che promuova la parità di trattamento, in conformità alle disposizioni degli articoli 45 e seguenti della LOIEMH.

      Per quanto riguarda i contenuti e le modalità di attuazione del Piano di Parità nelle aziende, segnaliamo le seguenti novità:

      • I temi ed i contenuti minimi che devono essere inclusi nel singolo Piano di Parità sono indicati in modo esaustivo.
      • E’ introdotta un’analisi della sotto-rappresentazione femminile in azienda quale tema da includere nel Piano.
      • La valutazione che le imprese devono compiere in fase di elaborazione del Piano di Parità deve essere oggetto di negoziazione con il rappresentante legale dei lavoratori.
      • È istituito un Registro dei Piano di Parità delle imprese, nel quale vanno iscritti tutti i Piani di Parità adottato dalle imprese, indipendentemente dal numero di lavoratori occupati.

      L’RDL 6/2019 introduce peraltro una nuova formulazione dell’articolo 28 dello Statuto dei Lavoratori, la quale sancisce l’obbligo per le imprese di conformarsi al principio della parità retributiva tra uomini e donne, stabilendo una serie di misure e obblighi a carico delle imprese, al fine di garantire l’effettivo rispetto della parità retributiva.

      In particolare, le nuove misure inserite nell’articolo 28 dello Statuto sono le seguenti:

      • Il testo definisce la nozione di “lavoro di pari valore“, al fine di promuovere un criterio unico ed eliminare ogni dubbio al riguardo.
      • Le imprese sono tenute a mantenere un Registro delle Retribuzioni, riportando i valori medi delle retribuzioni, delle componenti retributive supplementari e delle percezioni extra-salariali del proprio personale, differenziando i dati per genere e distribuendoli per gruppi professionali, categorie professionali o posizioni di lavoro di pari valore.
      • Il Registro delle Retribuzioni dovrà essere reso accessibile al rappresentante legale dei lavoratori.
      • Nelle imprese che occupano almeno 50 lavoratori con una retribuzione media relativa ai lavoratori di un genere superiore di almeno il 25% rispetto a quella dell’altro, è necessario inserire nel Registro delle Retribuzioni una motivazione di tale disparità, certificando che essa è dovuta a ragioni diverse dal genere dei lavoratori.

      L’inosservanza degli obblighi in materia di parità e, in particolare, di quelli attinenti al Piano di Parità ed alla parità retributiva tra uomini e donne, può comportare l’applicazione di pesanti sanzioni da parte dell’Ispettorato del Lavoro e della “Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social”.

      On 28 May 2019 the Dutch Parliament adopted new employment legislation: The Balanced Labour Market Act (‘Wet Arbeidsmarkt in Balans’), hereinafter the WAB. The most important changes are discussed below.

      New cumulation ground for dismissal

      The legislation introduces a new ground for dismissal. This makes it a bit easier for employers to dismiss employees. Dismissal will also be possible if there is a sum of circumstances, the so-called cumulation ground. Now the employer must fully comply with 1 of the 8 grounds for dismissal. This new ground gives the court the opportunity to combine circumstances. The employee can receive an extra half transitional allowance (on top of the current statutory transitional allowance) if the cumulation ground is used for the dismissal.

      Severance: Transitional allowance

      The new act arranges that employees will have the right to a transitional allowance immediately from the first start of the employment contract, instead of only after two years.

      The accrual of transitional allowance is reduced in case of long-term employment. The accrual for everyone, regardless of the age of the employee, is one third of a monthly salary.

      There will be a scheme for small employers to compensate the transitional allowance if they have to end their business due to retirement or illness.

      Extending the scope of the chain of employment agreements

      The current period after which successive fixed-term employment contracts legally change into an employment contract for an indefinite period is two years. The WAB broadens the succession of temporary contracts. Under the WAB it will still be possible to enter into a maximum of three temporary contracts. The maximum period of fixed-term contracts will be extended to three years. This chain of successive fixed-term employment contracts can be broken by an interruption period of six months.

      It is possible to shorten the interruption period between a chain of fixed-term contracts in a Collective Bargaining Agreement from six to three months if there is recurring temporary work that can be done for a maximum of nine months a year.

      An exception to the chain provision will be made for temporary workers in primary education who replace employees who became ill.

      Call agreement

      A new definition is introduced in Article 7: 628a paragraph 9 of the Dutch Civil Code: the ‘call agreement’. In call agreements the number of working hours per period and the salary are not established upfront but can vary depending on for example the amount of work available. Under the WAB an employee must be called by the employer at least four days in advance. If the employer does not follow this regulation, the employee is not obligated to come in for work. Call workers retain the right to wages for the period for which they were called if the work is cancelled less than four days in advance. The employer is obliged to offer the call worker an employment contract after a year for the average number of hours that he has worked in the previous twelve months. In Collective Bargaining Agreements alternative arrangements can be made under certain conditions.

      Payrolling

      Payroll employees will receive the same legal position and primary and secondary employment conditions as employees who are employed by the employer.

      Payroll employees are also entitled to an ‘adequate’ pension scheme.

      Unemployment benefit premium differentiation

      In order to make employment contracts for an indefinite period of time more attractive for employers, the WAB arranges for an unemployment benefit premium differentiation between permanent and temporary contracts. A lower premium will apply for employment contracts for an indefinite period of time and a higher premium for fixed-term employment contracts.

      Commencing date

      The intended commencing date of the WAB is 1 January 2020. The right to an adequate pension scheme for payrolling starts on 1 January 2021.

      The author of this post is Regine de Wit.

      10 practical aspects to consider for an adequate timing

      Meanwhile similar legal standards apply in most industrialized countries if an employment relationship shall be terminated; however, in every jurisdiction some specifics still need to be considered. The following ten aspects may be a first general guideline for the termination of an employment contract in Germany, in particular regarding its timing.

      1. In some cases notice needs to be given within a two-week period

      In case of gross misconduct an employer may be entitled to terminate an employment relationship forthwith. However, if notice of termination is not served to the employee within two weeks after acknowledgement of the respective facts, this right is forfeited.

      1. Notice has to be given in writing

      The notice has to be signed by the legal representative of the employer and delivered to the employee. Neither a transmission by facsimile nor an email with a scanned copy is sufficient. If the representative is not on site, timing may become an essential aspect of the termination process.

      1. Ordinary dismissal may be prohibited by a collective bargaining agreement

      Collective bargaining agreements often provide a ban on ordinary dismissal under certain circumstances (e.g. based on the age of the employee). A careful assessment of all applicable collective bargaining agreements before a termination is therefore indispensable.

      1. Insufficient information of the works councils may lead to an invalid termination

      The establishment of a works council is not mandatory in Germany. However, if it is established, it needs to be notified and heard before every termination of an employment contract. The notification must contain a sufficient description of the grounds for the termination, otherwise the termination may be deemed invalid. Having been notified, the works council has one week (in some cases: three days) to object. Any termination before such term without consent of the works council would be deemed invalid as well. Timing may therefore become again an essential aspect of the termination process.

      1. General dismissal protection is related to seniority and size of the establishment

      General dismissal protection is basically applicable in establishments with more than 10 employees. Exceptions may apply in favour of those employees whose employment relationships commenced already before 1st January 2004. In addition, the respective employee needs to have at least a seniority of six month. If these criteria are met, the termination has to be justified by operational reasons, misconduct or personal incapacity as set out in the Dismissal Protection Act.

      1. Some terminations may need prior permission

      Irrespective of the application of the afore mentioned Dismissal Protection Act some kind of terminations (e.g. employees on parental leave) may need a special permission of the works council, the Labour Court or the respective public authority as applicable. These procedures may last from some days up to two years.

      1. There is no general claim for severance payment in case of an unfair dismissal

      Aside from those agreed in termination agreements there is no general claim for severance payment in case of an unfair dismissal. In general, the statutory remedy will only be reinstatement and back pay. Only under certain circumstances each party may apply for the termination of the employment relationship and a severance payment in front of the Labour Court. However, in most of the cases parties end up in a voluntary termination agreement.

      1. Non-competes may lead to extensive payments and cannot be withdrawn forthwith unilaterally without cause

      A binding covenant to non-compete leads to a compensation payment of at least 50 % of the former salary for every month of its duration. Even in case of a justified termination it may only be terminated with a notice period of one year. However, both parties may agree upon its immediate suspension in a termination agreement.

      1. Any termination agreement has to be in written form as well

      Also a termination agreement needs to fulfil the same formal requirements as set out already above under point 2. Again, if the representative is not on site, timing may become an essential aspect of the bargaining process.

      1. The forfeiture clause of a termination agreement may not cover all claims 

      Termination agreements often contain general forfeiture clauses at their end, covering also those potential claims which have not been explicitly mentioned or identified by the parties. However, some claims (e.g. pension claims) may not be covered by such a (general) forfeiture clause.

      Please note that these ten aspects contain general information only. Further details as well as possible exceptions therefore need to be checked on a case-by-case basis by a professional advisor.

       

      Tha author of this post is Alexander Lentz

      L’imprenditore che intenda concentrarsi esclusivamente sul proprio core business ha la possibilità di ricorrere ad altri imprenditori, a cui affidare la realizzazione di tutte quelle opere e di quei servizi comunque necessari per la gestione dell’impresa.

      Il termine tecnico che si utilizza per definire un tale modus operandi è quello di “esternalizzazione” di parte dell’attività imprenditoriale e, solitamente, l’accordo che regola tale tipologia di collaborazione è un contratto di appalto, vale a dire il contratto con il quale una parte si impegna a compiere un’opera o un servizio a favore di un’altra e verso un corrispettivo in denaro.

      Esempio di contratto di appalto d’opera potrebbe essere il contratto con il quale un’impresa edile si obbliga a costruire un palazzo per una società immobiliare; esempio di appalto di servizi potrebbe essere il contratto che si stipula con un’impresa di pulizie per la pulizia del proprio stabile.

      L’appalto ha per oggetto una prestazione di “fare” nell’ambito della quale un soggetto, detto appaltatore, si impegna a svolgere un’attività determinata, fornendo ed organizzando i mezzi necessari e gestendo la realizzazione a proprio rischio; è poi necessario che l’attività sia organizzata in forma di impresa e che quindi l’appaltatore sia, esso stesso, un imprenditore.

      In Italia lo strumento dell’appalto ha sempre avuto grande diffusione ed utilizzo e da sempre rappresenta lo strumento privilegiato per esternalizzare attività poco remunerative nell’ambito di realtà imprenditoriali complesse: obiettivo di chi ricorre all’appalto è quello di realizzare efficienza in termini di risorse, sia economiche (riduzione dei costi) che materiali (riduzione di personale e delle responsabilità connesse alla sua gestione).

      Quanto sopra vale anche per gli imprenditori esteri che gestiscono o decidono di avviare un’attività in Italia: l’appalto rappresenta un ottimo strumento per delegare ad altri soggetti, in loco e con una specifica expertise in materia, la gestione di problematiche complesse quali: l’ottenimento di autorizzazioni pubbliche, l’approvvigionamento di particolari materie prime, il reclutamento sul territorio di risorse umane qualificate.

      L’esternalizzazione della attività non è un fenomeno omogeneo e le esigenze che spesso si presentano in concreto sono suscettibili di prestarsi anche a differenti soluzioni, a seconda dell’oggetto della prestazione, della tipologia e delle caratteristiche del committente o della particolare natura degli interessi coinvolti.

      Proprio in virtù delle suddette particolarità molto spesso, in luogo del contratto di appalto, l’imprenditore fa ricorso al contratto di subfornitura.

      Con il contratto di subfornitura un imprenditore si impegna a effettuare, per conto di una impresa committente, lavorazioni su prodotti semilavorati o su materie prime forniti dalla committente medesima, o si impegna a fornire all’impresa prodotti o servizi destinati ad essere incorporati o comunque ad essere utilizzati nell’ambito dell’attività economica del committente o nella produzione di un bene complesso, in conformità a progetti esecutivi, conoscenze tecniche e tecnologiche, modelli o prototipi forniti dall’impresa committente.

      Sintetizzando e forse banalizzando fiorenti dibattiti dottrinali e giurisprudenziali, potremmo dire che molto spesso la differenza tra un appalto di servizi e la “subfornitura” consiste nel fatto che in caso di subfornitura le attività oggetto del contratto vengono svolte su materiali del committente e/o consistono nella realizzazione di beni o servizi funzionali al processo produttivo del committente; in ogni caso, la subfornitura comporta la “dipendenza tecnologica” (ed anche economica) del subfornitore nei confronti del committente.

      Proprio il decentramento e la dissociazione che l’esternalizzazione di processi e attività realizza tra il “gestore” dell’attività esternalizzata ed il fruitore finale della stessa, suscita da sempre grande attenzione da parte del legislatore italiano.

      Attenzione finalizzata a tutelare soprattutto i dipendenti coinvolti nell’attività esternalizzata in caso di eventi nefasti idonei a privarli di garanzie legali di cui, invece, possono continuare a godere i dipendenti dell’appaltante committente (pensiamo ad esempio alla sofferenza finanziaria dell’appaltatore/subfornitore, o addirittura al suo coinvolgimento in procedure concorsuali, da cui derivi il mancato pagamento di retribuzioni e contributi).

      Per tali ragioni, ormai a far data dal 2003, il legislatore italiano ha introdotto un oneroso regime di solidarietà tra committente e appaltatore, nonché con ciascuno degli eventuali subappaltatori che, entro il limite di due anni dalla cessazione dell’appalto, sono obbligati in solido a corrispondere ai lavoratori i trattamenti retributivi, comprese le quote di trattamento di fine rapporto, nonché i contributi previdenziali e i premi assicurativi dovuti in relazione al periodo di esecuzione del contratto di appalto.

      Sino al mese di dicembre del 2017 la giurisprudenza di merito era consolidata nel ritenere che il regime della responsabilità solidale fosse applicabile esclusivamente all’appalto di servizi e non alla subfornitura. Circostanza questa che rendeva il ricorso alla subfornitura potenzialmente meno oneroso per il committente.

      Con sentenza n. 254 del 6 dicembre scorso, tuttavia, la prospettiva è stata completamente ribaltata dalla Corte Costituzionale che chiamata a pronunciarsi in materia ha stabilito l’applicazione estensiva del principio della responsabilità solidale anche tra committente e subfornitore.

      La sentenza parte dall’analisi della nota questione giurisprudenziale circa la configurazione giuridica del contratto di subfornitura e, in particolare, circa l’autonomia o meno del contratto di fornitura rispetto al contratto di appalto.

      Senza entrare nel merito del dibattito giurisprudenziale esistente, la Corte Costituzionale sostiene che, al di là dell’orientamento seguito quanto all’assimilazione o meno della subfornitura al contratto di appalto, è possibile operare l’estensione della responsabilità del committente/appaltatore ai crediti di lavoro dei dipendenti del subfornitore.

      Ciò in quanto l’introduzione della norma sulla responsabilità solidale in ipotesi di appalto, non può giustificare l’esclusione della medesima garanzia nei confronti dei dipendenti del subfornitore, atteso che la tutela del soggetto che assicura un’attività lavorativa indiretta non può non estendersi a tutti i livelli di decentramento.

      Sulla base di tali considerazioni, dunque, il principio della responsabilità solidale va correttamente interpretato nel senso che il committente/appaltatore è obbligato in solido (anche) con il subfornitore, relativamente ai crediti lavorativi, contributivi e assicurativi dei dipendenti di questi, al pari quindi di quanto lo è verso i dipendenti del subappaltatore.

      In sostanza il committente risponde direttamente, salvo successiva rivalsa, per le rivendicazioni economiche avanzate dai dipendenti dell’appaltatore, del subappaltatore e del subfornitore e di tutti i lavoratori che dovessero essere stati utilizzati nell’attività esternalizzata in relazione a: i) crediti retributivi maturati durante il periodo di correlazione tra committente ed impresa che ha eseguito i lavori, ivi compresi, “pro – quota”, quelli relativi al trattamento di fine rapporto; e ii) contributi previdenziali e premi assicurativi dovuti per il periodo di esecuzione della prestazione.

      Il lavoratore può chiedere direttamente al committente il pagamento di quanto maturato nei confronti del proprio datore. Il committente, chiamato in giudizio, non può mai chiedere l’escussione del coobbligato in solido: deve pagare salva l’azione di regresso.

      Il committente quindi, nonostante l’esigenza iniziale fosse quella di fare efficienza e ridurre costi, può trovarsi esposto ad un rischio economico molto maggiore rispetto al costo risparmiato, soprattutto se le rivendicazioni economiche riguardano situazioni non controllabili a priori: facciamo riferimento ad esempio, all’eventuale personale utilizzato “in maniera irregolare” dall’appaltatore/subfornitore, oppure alle rivendicazioni connesse allo svolgimento di mansioni superiori, od anche alla richiesta di lavoro straordinario al di fuori dei parametri di legge.

      Esistono naturalmente sistemi e meccanismi idonei a contenere il rischio o, comunque, idonei a garantire al committente maggiore controllo sul corretto funzionamento della filiera esternalizzata.

      Tra questi, ad esempio, alla possibilità di prevedere contrattualmente strumenti di tutela economica quali fideiussioni e manleve.

      Ma esiste anche la possibilità di implementare, sempre nel contratto, un adeguato sistema di controllo sulla corretta gestione del personale nonché sull’erogazione di retribuzioni, contributi e premi assicurativi.

      Alla luce di quanto sopra, concludiamo individuando nella figura del consulente esperto in materia di diritto del lavoro il miglior supporto per l’imprenditore che intenda avventurarsi in maniera consapevole e sicura in un processo di esternalizzazione.

      L’autore di questo articolo è Domenica Cotroneo.

      Il distacco transnazionale di lavoratori è quel meccanismo attraverso cui le imprese di uno Stato membro prestano servizi in un altro Stato membro inviando direttamente i propri dipendenti nel territorio di quest’ultimo.

      Nel corso degli ultimi 20 anni tale fenomeno è cresciuto in maniera rilevante a livello europeo, soprattutto a seguito dell’ingresso nell’Unione dei Paesi dell’est, che avevano – e in parte continuano ad avere – un costo del lavoro sensibilmente più basso di quello degli altri Stati membri.

      Il fenomeno è stato quindi oggetto di diversi interventi del legislatore europeo e di quelli nazionali, nonché di alcune rilevanti decisioni della Corte di Giustizia. Esso si pone infatti in relazione con diversi diritti fondamentali riconosciuti dall’Unione e richiede un equilibrato bilanciamento degli interessi in gioco.

      Occorre garantire le libertà di circolazione di lavoratori,  capitali e merci e, in particolare, la libera prestazione dei servizi (art. 56 TFUE), salvaguardando al contempo la leale concorrenza tra le imprese e la tutela dei lavoratori. Il legislatore comunitario intervenne sul tema con la Direttiva 96/71/CE (attuata in Italia col D. Lgs. 72/2000), poi integrata dalla Direttiva 2014/67/UE (attuata in Italia col D. Lgs. 136/2016).

      Il legislatore europeo e quello nazionale perseguono con le citate disposizioni due principali obiettivi:

      – contrastare i distacchi fittizi attraverso società di comodo, le cosiddette letterbox company, garantendo equilibrio concorrenziale a livello europeo;

      – garantire uniformità di trattamento e di tutela ai lavoratori coinvolti, impedendo fenomeni di ‘dumping sociale’.

      Per raggiungere questi obiettivi viene rafforzato il sistema di cooperazione amministrativa tra le diverse autorità ispettive nazionali,  vengono individuati criteri predefiniti per la valutazione dell’autenticità del distacco e vengono stabilite condizioni minime da garantire ai lavoratori.

      Per valutare l’autenticità del distacco, l’art. 4 della direttiva 2014/67/UE (recepito nell’art. 3 della legge italiana) indica alcune caratteristiche da prendere in considerazione con riferimento alle imprese coinvolte e ai lavoratori distaccati.

      Per le imprese sono considerati rilevanti i seguenti elementi:

      1. a) il luogo in cui l’impresa ha la propria sede legale e amministrativa, utilizza uffici, paga imposte e contributi previdenziali ed è iscritta alla camera di commercio;
      2. b) il luogo in cui i lavoratori sono assunti e quello da cui sono distaccati;
      3. c) la legge applicabile ai contratti stipulati dall’impresa con i suoi lavoratori e con i suoi clienti;
      4. d) il luogo in cui l’impresa esercita la propria attività economica principale e in cui è occupato il suo personale amministrativo;
      5. e) il numero dei contratti eseguiti o l’ammontare del fatturato realizzato dall’impresa nello Stato membro di stabilimento, tenendo conto della specificità delle piccole e medie imprese e di quelle di nuova costituzione.

      Per i lavoratori vengono prese in considerazione queste circostanze:

      1. a) lo svolgimento dell’attività lavorativa per un periodo di tempo limitato in un altro Stato membro;
      2. b) la data di inizio del distacco;
      3. c) l’esercizio abituale dell’attività lavorativa nello Stato di provenienza;
      4. d) il ritorno a prestare attività lavorativa nello Stato cui è stato distaccato;
      5. e) la natura e le modalità di svolgimento dell’attività;
      6. f) il rimborso da parte del datore di lavoro distaccante delle spese di viaggio, vitto o alloggio  e le modalità di pagamento;
      7. g) eventuali periodi precedenti in cui la medesima attività è stata svolta dallo stesso o da un altro lavoratore distaccato.

      Tutte queste circostanze devono essere considerate nel loro complesso, nessuna è di per sé decisiva e spetta alle autorità nazionali la valutazione finale dell’autenticità o meno del distacco.

      L’eventuale accertamento di un distacco fittizio determina rilevanti sanzioni amministrative a carico sia dell’impresa distaccante che di quella utilizzatrice, nonché la loro corresponsabilità per i crediti dei lavoratori.

      Il legislatore italiano ha inoltre rafforzato tale previsione: in simmetria con quanto previsto per i casi di intermediazione illecita di mano d’opera, ha infatti stabilito che, se il distacco non risulta autentico, “il lavoratore è considerato a tutti gli effetti alle dipendenze del soggetto che ne ha utilizzato la prestazione” (art. 3 legge italiana).

      Ai fini della tutela dei lavoratori e dell’equilibrio concorrenziale, l’art. 3 della direttiva 96/71/CE (art. 4 della legge italiana) stabilisce che, qualunque sia la legislazione applicabile al rapporto di lavoro, gli Stati membri devono far sì che ai lavoratori distaccati sul loro territorio siano garantite, per il periodo del distacco, condizioni di lavoro analoghe a quelle dei lavoratori nazionali. In particolare, i lavoratori distaccati devono godere di un trattamento equivalente in relazione a:

      – periodi massimi di lavoro e minimi di riposo;

      – durata minima delle ferie annuali retribuite;

      – tariffe minime salariali;

      – sicurezza e salute sul lavoro;

      – tutela per lavoratrici madri, bambini e giovani;

      – parità di trattamento uomo/donna e principi di non discriminazione.

      Dal punto di vista pratico, l’aspetto di più complessa valutazione riguarda le tariffe minime salariali. Nei diversi paesi dell’Unione esse sono infatti definite in maniera diversa, da fonti diverse (legge/fonti amministrative/contratti collettivi) e sono composte da molte voci, non sempre sovrapponibili.

      D’altro canto, gli aspetti economici sono determinanti per imprese e lavoratori per valutare l’opportunità e la convenienza del distacco.

      Proprio per queste ragioni, la Corte di Giustizia ha chiarito che il confronto tra le diverse tariffe nazionali deve essere condotto confrontando l’importo complessivo e non le singole voci salariali. La Corte ha inoltre precisato che il confronto deve essere limitato alle voci retributive in senso stretto, cioè in diretta relazione con la prestazione, escludendo per esempio i premi supplementari. Infine la giurisprudenza comunitaria ha chiarito che le voci retributive da prendere in considerazione devono essere accessibili e chiare per il datore di lavoro distaccante.

      Da ultimo le disposizioni europee impongono agli Stati membri di consentire ai lavoratori distaccati sul loro territorio l’accesso agli strumenti di tutela, anche giudiziaria, predisposti per i lavoratori nazionali.

      A questo fine, in Italia si è esplicitamente prevista la facoltà, per i lavoratori distaccati, di agire sia in sede amministrativa che giudiziale (art. 5 legge italiana).

      In Spagna il licenziamento viene classificato individuale o collettivo, a seconda del numero di lavoratori assoggettati a tale misura.

      L’articolo 51 dello Statuto dei Lavoratori considera “licenziamento collettivo” l’estinzione del rapporto di lavoro causata da motivazioni economiche, tecniche, organizzative o di produzione quando, nel periodo di novanta giorni, coinvolga: (i) almeno dieci lavoratori di un’impresa con meno di 100 dipendenti; (ii) il dieci per cento dei lavoratori in una impresa che abbia tra cento e trecento dipendenti; (iii) trenta lavoratori nelle imprese con più di trecento dipendenti.

      Il licenziamento potrà essere impugnato in sede giudiziale, entro 20 giorni lavorativi e potrà essere dichiarato legittimo (procedente), illegittimo (improcedente) o nullo.

      Il licenziamento si considera legittimo quando è confermato l’inadempimento da parte del lavoratore contestato dall’imprenditore nella comunicazione del licenziamento e sono stati soddisfatti i requisiti formali, quali (i) la comunicazione per iscritto al lavoratore; (ii) una sufficiente descrizione dei fatti che hanno determinato il licenziamento e (iii) l’indicazione della data a partire della quale il licenziamento sarà efficace.

      Sarà dichiarato illegittimo il licenziamento privo dei requisiti citati nel paragrafo precedente.

      Il licenziamento è nullo nei seguenti casi: (i) violazione dei diritti fondamentali o libertà pubblica; (ii) il lavoratore è una vittima di violenza di genere; (iii) salvo che si dimostri la giusta causa, nei casi di: lavoratrici incinte, con permesso di maternità, paternità o allattamento, o con riduzione della giornata lavorativa per curare un minore di dodici anni o una persona con una incapacità fisica, psichica o sensoriale.

      Nel caso in cui il licenziamento sia dichiarato illegittimo, l’imprenditore entro cinque giorni dovrà scegliere se reintegrare il lavoratore nel posto di lavoro (e pagargli le mensilità trascorse tra il licenziamento e la notificazione della sentenza, i cosiddetti salarios de tramitación) oppure pagargli l’indennità, il cui importo dipende dalla durata del rapporto, come si analizzerà di seguito. Nel caso in cui il lavoratore licenziato sia un rappresentante sindacale, la scelta tra le due opzioni spetterà al lavoratore e non all’imprenditore.

      Se il licenziamento è dichiarato nullo, l’imprenditore avrà l’obbligo di reintegrare il lavoratore nel posto di lavoro e potrà essere condannato al risarcimento dei danni assieme al pagamento delle mensilità trascorse tra il licenziamento e la notifica della sentenza.

      Come accennato in precedenza, l’indennità dovuta al lavoratore (alternativa al reintegro per i licenziamenti illegittimi) dipende dal momento in cui è iniziato il rapporto di lavoro.

      L’indennità da pagare nel caso del licenziamento di un lavoratore assunto dopo il 12 febbraio 2012, sarà pari a 33 giorni di retribuzione per ogni anno lavorato.

      Nel caso in cui il lavoratore licenziato sia stato assunto prima del 12 febbraio 2012, l’indennità verrà calcolata come segue:

      • per il periodo trascorso tra la firma del contratto e il 12 febbraio 2012, l’indennità è pari a 45 giorni di retribuzione per ogni anno di rapporto;
      • sarà pari a 33 giorni di retribuzione per ogni anno lavorato dopo il 12 febbraio 2012.

      In ogni caso l’indennità non potrà ammontare a più di 720 giorni di retribuzione, salvo il caso in cui, dal calcolo dell’indennità del periodo precedente il 12 febbraio 2012, risultasse un numero di giorni superiore a 720, nel quale l’indennità non potrà essere superiore a quarantadue mensilità.

      Inoltre è importante ricordare che l’indennità in caso di licenziamento è esente da qualunque imposta fino a 180.000 euro. Per la cifra superiore, la tassazione sarà parificata ai redditi di lavoro, con una riduzione del 30% nel caso di rapporto di lavoro terminato da almeno due anni.

      Latvia - Legalmondo

      Latvia – Establishing a company
      • Diritto societario
      • Lettonia

      Esternalizzazione: la responsabilità di committente, appaltatore e subappaltatore

      29 Marzo 2018

      • Italia
      • Lavoro

      Today during Covid–19 circumstances Gig economy approach has become more necessity rather than theoretical possibility. But still transformation of Latvian business and employment market does not run so smooth. Why so?

      At the end of year 2019 the State Labour Inspectorate of Latvia in cooperation with private partners released results of a research on new forms of employment presence and potential in Latvia (http://www.vdi.gov.lv/files/jnf_gala_zinojums.pdf). The results of this research as well of other international researches are rather controversial as do not conform to the real situation in the country.

      Although the aforementioned researches claim that employers in Latvia are supporters of old-style employment and are not willing to change the practice, in fact the laws of Latvia in effect do not provide flexibility on the approach of employment.

      Covid-19 has badly hit a lot of economies, and actually highlighted the largest challenges – employers to save their business would like to pay less, whereas employees need flexibility as they are required to work remotely and combine their private and work lives.

      In this article an analysis of how general conditions of employment applicable today correspond to frame of main five aspects of a Gig economy will be provided.

      Employment “one to one” or “one to many”

      Gig economy considers that traditional employment has no longer place in our world. The employment should be available among one employer and many employees, many employers and many employees or one employee and many employers, thus employment being in each contractual relations part time, nevertheless all employees are jointly and severally liable for the result of work.

      Labour Law of Latvia keeps traditions of employment – one employer and one employee. Likewise part time work is permitted just in statutorily listed cases like to replace an employee in long term absence, in case of increase of the workload in the company, in emergency cases, and in certain areas like culture, sports, banking, education and diplomacy. Moreover, length of a fixed-term employment may not exceed 5 years in total (including extensions). As a result of this majority of employments are open ended.

      In order to solve the burden imposed by law, employers often use potential employees as external service providers based on a Service Agreement in this manner imitating self employment. Self employment for a payor is less expensive tax wise, which led authorities to introduce limiting measures for flexibility of entrepreneurs.
      In the Law on Personal Income Tax criteria of employment per se where introduced. Namely, an agreement with an individual can be deemed as contractual relationships subject to payment of salary and accordingly payroll if at least one of the following conditions has been ascertained:

      • the individual has economic dependence upon the party to whom he/she provides services;
      • lack of assumption of financial risks in the fulfilment of work or no liability in respect to lost debtor debts;
      • integration of the contracted individual into the company to which services are provided (e.g. existence of a work or recreational areas, a duty to observe internal rules of the company);
      • availability of holidays and paid leave in accordance with schedules of the company;
      • work shall be performed under management or control of the other contracting party – the customer, and the individual is deprived of possibility to involve in the service provision his/ her personnel or sub-contractors; or
      • the individual is not owner of the assets used while rendering services to the company.

      Respectively in case the State Revenue Service of Latvia (tax authority) detects presence of the criteria listed, it shall be entitled to reclassify the contractual relations of the seemingly independent parties into employment relations as a result of which remuneration paid to the individual would be subject to full payroll as any other salary gained on basis of Employment Agreement. The tax expense threshold the companies playing with by out of box employment results in significant difference:

      • payroll in case of employment – progressive personal income tax between 20% to 23% depending on the income (at certain level the annual income of an individual may though be subject to maximum rate of the personal income tax – 31.4%); social security contributions of 35.09%; majority of these expenses being on the employer’s shoulders; whereas
      • taxes applicable in case of self-employment – progressive personal income tax between 20% to 31.4% depending on the income; social security contributions of 32.15%, basis of these compulsory contributions being a freely chosen income; in this case if the contracted individual is a registered economic operator – the taxes are all his/her liability, whereas if the individual has not registered with tax authorities independent economic activity, the taxes shall be withheld at the moment of disbursement of the remuneration and paid into the State budget by the company contracting the individual.

      In circumstances of Covid–19 the traditional employment scenarios chosen by entrepreneurs due to rather strict statutory rules have heavily impacted operation of businesses as employers had to either dismiss their employees or let them in idleness with crisis management allowance established by the State as support during Covid–19.

      The outcome showed that applying of different type of “employment” structures, like contracting specialists on the need to basis or crowdsourcing of employees among numerous employers could have facilitated challenges the employers face today in many ways – provide availability of different specialists for the project/ time period required, limit expenses in respect to the employees whom the companies were forced to let in idleness, and alike, all of this still keeping the business running.

      Employment volatility as new formula for flexibility

      As described earlier, present requirements of the Labour Law of Latvia require employment relationships to be based on clear and sustainable rules thus ensuring predictable and long term support to the employees, both in terms of employment and social security.
      The strict approach is even more secured by strict statutory conditions and notice periods under which an employee can be dismissed:

      With a notice of immediate effect:

      • while performing work the employee has acted unlawfully and therefore has lost trust of the employer;
      • while performing the work employee is in a state of intoxication (e.g. alcohol, drugs, other); or
      • the employee is unable to perform the contracted work due to a state of health, and this is confirmed by a medical opinion;

      With a 10 days notice:

      • in case employee has without justifiable reason materially violated the contracted work order;
      • while performing the work the employee has acted contrary to good morals, and such action is incompatible with the continuation of the employment;
      • the employee has grossly violated work safety rules and endangered safety and health of other persons; or
      • due to temporary incapacity of the employee for work for more than 6 and up to 12 months;

      With a one month notice:

      • if the employee is in lack of sufficient professional skills to perform the contracted work;
      • an employee previously employed in the particular position has been reinstated to work;
      • in case of staff redundancy (presuming that employer will not hire immediately new employee in same position); or
      • in case the employer is being liquidated.

      Having seen the list of statutory conditions one would definitely agree that only few circumstances are of a regular character, meaning can be actually applied, whereas the rest are seldom met. Sure there is also available an exception out of this strongly established frame – to terminate employment without any specific reason if the employee and employer can reach a mutual agreement. However that may be a challenge – employees are not obliged to participate in negotiations with employers and can simply walk away.

      So how much of volatility and flexibility can be reached in such strongly fixed statutory frame?
      Practically not much.

      Accordingly under Covid–19 circumstances companies have applied staff redundancy condition more than ever, which may not have been necessary if employment structures would be more flexible. Part of employees today let in idleness have started to look for new job even before the actual dismissal, because perception of stability and predictability is the driving force. This actually showing that although employment of a periodical character would not provide long term income and social security, with this approach the employees of Latvia would have been more used and resistant to fast changing circumstances and periods of actual idleness (meaning also – had some savings).

      It appears that development of economy and business approaches runs on a speed of light, whereas statutory regulation does not manage to follow in those footsteps. The question is though do we need today law and regulation for each detail, if in practice changes come into our lives so fast. Maybe a better solution would be regulation on general principles and practically providing field of different approaches and solutions which would fit more each business segment and keep economy running also in such extraordinary circumstances as Covid-19.

      A close cooperation among numerous employers

      The Gig economy concept provides for presence of different types of cooperation among employers and employees, including crowdsourcing of personnel, sharing of working spaces, liaising business operations and sharing liability in respect to work performed.

      Under present requirements of employment and tax laws of Latvia having shared workforce is rather complicated. The statutory restrictions keep accountability of employers at a very high level thus at the end of the day the approach of traditional employment – “one employer and one employee” – on Latvian market appears to be the easiest. Likewise the strict statutory rules have developed certain culture also on the employee side – “I have one master” seems the most correct and secure way and any other solutions are simply out of discussion.

      As an example, it took years for the Latvian market to admit that employees can be also leased out. Due to long term difficulties with practical applicability of this concept and contractual split of liabilities between lessor and lessee in respect to the employee (being those days at full discretion of the contractual parties), not always being favourable for the employee, in year 2011 changes to the Labour Law were introduced. The amendments established precise definition on what a lease of employees is, the scope of liability and split of duties among the parties resulting therefrom. However not without creating new burdens.

      The statutory protection level of employees on the Latvian market has always been very high and same became applicable in case of lease of workforce. No doubt employees have to be protected; however employee lease is a slightly different way of employment and therefore the regulation in place is still not always compatible with differentiation of employment schemes possible. Last but not least, another aspect complicating applicability of lease of employees is that lease of workforce is set as licensable operation. The procedure to obtain license is complicate enough and involves preparation of paper loads, moreover under statutory requirements a license must be obtained even if the employees are leased between related companies. Thus benefits of this employment structure are certainly disputable.

      Crowdsourcing of employees is the next step; however theoretically possible already today. Individuals could become self employed specialists and enter into contracts with different companies, thus avoiding of the risk under Law on Personal Income Tax (described in this article earlier) to be recognized as employee of any of these companies provided of course that the individual assumes certain financial risks and does job with his/her own tools in majority. It can be considered also as mitigation of risks for both parties – the individual has certain financial and social security stability, as losing one customer would not heavily impact the individual’s income and life quality; whereas on the company’s side – expenses can be planned according to business plans and necessity. But not all individuals are today ready to work without strong supervision and assume full liability.

      Covid-19 showed that flexibility should be introduced. Moreover a plan on mitigation of risks and business sustainability are not just nice words, it is a must have plan to be updated constantly for the companies to be ready for extraordinary situations. Likewise stability the employees consider they have due to open ended “one master” employment are very volatile, the risks are always out there and nothing should be deemed as for granted.

      Nevertheless, pure employment issues are not the only challenges in the Gig economy approach.

      Remote and digital employment – the skills for the future

      Gig economy idea claims for flexibility and free choice of place to be, which for a traditional society like Latvia is a true challenge. Historically established traditions of frame and control in each aspect are still alive and part of the culture, whereas new generation which was born in years of independence already with their different view is considered as rebels.

      Labor Law of Latvia states ten mandatory terms and conditions to be included in each that Employment Agreements:

      • name, surname, ID number/ birth date, address of the employee; name, registration number, address of the employer;
      • starting date of the employment;
      • expected length of the employment (in case the agreement is concluded for certain period of time);
      • place of work and/ or in case employee will be required to perform work duties in different places, this must be clearly indicated;
      • the position employee is employed for indicating also code of the profession according to Classification of Professions established by the State;
      • amount of remuneration agreed and date of payment thereof;
      • contracted work time per day or per week;
      • length of the annual paid leave;
      • notice periods of the Employment Agreement;
      • indication to Collective Agreement and internal procedures and policies of the company applicable to the said employment.

      These mandatory aspects must be included in the agreement irrespective of whether they are statutorily fixed or can be changed upon agreement of the parties. Moreover, in case further changes in these terms shall be required the employer is obliged to inform the employee on that with one month prior written notice. Whereas coming into effect of the amendments to the agreement shall be absolutely subject to agreement between the parties or it triggers rights for the employer to unilaterally terminate employment (based though on staff reduction argument). Thus clear statement of where the work place is forms one of the key elements of the employment and changing it is rather inflexible.

      But it must be also taken into account that historically the concept of a fixed work place is connected to certain additional and consequential aspects. Namely, performance of work in the work place indicated in the Employment Agreement is solely subject to payment of salary and if applicable – compensation for overtime, as a general rule – not less than in amount of 100% of the hourly or daily salary rate set. Whereas work outside the work place established by the Employment Agreement may be deemed one of two business trip types and statutory rule is to provide additional protection to employees when they have to perform their work outside used place, especially if this is away from home:

      • Business trip A (komandējums) – a trip for a certain period of time based on order of the employer, to another location either inland or abroad to perform work duties or to promote qualification. This business trip is subject to compensation by the employer of daily allowance at least in the statutorily established amount, transportation and luggage expenses, expenses for accommodation, parking expenses, insurance expenses, participations fees at the events and alike;
      • Business trip B (darba brauciens) – work of the employee, if it takes place while travelling in accordance with the concluded Employment Agreement/ job description, inland or abroad, if the work involves regular/ systematic trips and change of location. This business trip is subject to compensation by the employer of slightly less expenses than in case of the business trip A – transportation expenses, expenses for accommodation, parking expenses, insurance expenses, expenses for transportation of luggage and few more.

      At the end of the day it is significant for the employer to precisely establish whether this is employment at another place as provides Employment Agreement or one of the business trips, accordingly precisely detecting which business trip type is applied as on this depends the overall amount of expenses to be compensated for the employee. And even more, certain aspects as for instance whether the employee can return to the residence place at the end of the day can decrease the amount of compensation to be paid. Accordingly applying of a fixed place of work may be financial wise more advantageous for the employer than flexibility of location for the employee.

      Another challenge of the work outside the office premises is compliance with work and health safety rules. When the work is performed in office premises of the employer it is mandatory obligation of the employer to ensure safe and healthy work conditions for its employees that including air conditions, work place suitable to spend hours in performing duties, safe and suitable tools for work and alike. Likewise the employer is in charge of running trainings for employees in this respect.

      Before extraordinary Covid–19 circumstances remote work was present in Latvia; however it was merely optional and applied in exceptional cases. Each case requiring ongoing remote work was true stress to employers, because the only way how to mitigate responsibility of the employer in respect to work safety was to conclude an additional agreement, with the employee probably stating that it has been initiative of the employee to work remotely and employer has agreed to that, thus the liability in respect to the work safety (and health) condition being transferred fully to the employee.

      Co-working spaces as a first change in culture had shaken not only the traditional approach of what a work place should be, but also the statutory frame. Due to various forms of employment becoming more and more relevant, including remote work, when the employee works at home or elsewhere outside the company, necessity for adaption of the work safety regulation to current trends became inevitable.
      As a result in October 2019 amendments to the Labour Protection Law were adopted.
      The new regulation coming into effect on July 1, 2020 finally declares what is a remote work, excluding therefrom work which is related to regular travelling. The new rules also establish obligation for the remote work performer to cooperate and exchange information with the employer in evaluation of work safety risks in the environment the employee is going to perform the work, if such circumstances can endanger or impact safety and health of the employee. The support in evaluation of the work safety must be provided by the employer irrespective of number of locations the employee would decide to perform the work at. And the employer will be responsible for the recordkeeping in respect to such work place evaluations. Nevertheless the part of law in respect to liability has not changed overall – the employer remains responsible for work and health safety at work of the persons employed/ contracted.

      It can be already today predicted that practicalities of the newly established approach will cause a lot of tricky and disputable situations. In a culture where employees are not keen to take responsibility, the new regulation will trigger employee claims to finance and ensure working conditions per individual choice and ambitions unless the employers will develop precise internal policies and procedures on conditions and equipment company deems sufficient and appropriate for the particular position in which the employee is employed.

      Hence the statutory regulation obviously needs more of development and tests in deployment before Gig economy approach can be deemed as fitting the culture and expectations of the society and aligning the statutory rules.

      For performance of the work duties especially information and communications technologies (ICT) are required

      And finally – under the Gig economy performance of work remotely would not be possible without proper gadgets – PCs, smartphones, tablets etc.

      When it comes to extraordinary circumstances like Covid-19 our very well digitalized society appears to be well skilled mainly in using digital social media, but as far as it concerns doing work, not yet so sophisticated. Lockdown discovered that a lot of inhabitants of Latvia have very poor ICT with limited functionality, low security level and even outdated. When using such equipment for performance of work duties the productivity is under question, cooperation of employees limps, reaching results takes longer time. But even more – data (especially confidential information) of the employer is endangered when poor ICT solutions are used.

      If we take a look at digitalization of Latvia, although not much internationally advertised, it is at a high level.
      Already today Latvian society has access to:

      • Latvia has one of the fastest internet connections in the world;
      • registration of corporate changes with the Company Register by submitting electronically signed documents (www.ur.gov.lv; www.latvija.lv);
      • complying with tax reporting requirements via electronic tool of the State Revenue Service, providing all communication with the tax authority also electronically (eds.vid.gov.lv);
      • signing majority of documents (public and private) electronically with secure digital signature and a time stamp (granted based on and connected with ID and passport of an individual) issued by LVRTC – one of the leading electronic communication service providers in Latvia (www.eparaksts.lv). This signature is recognized and can be combined with similar electronic signatures of other countries, e.g. Lithuania and Estonia. Even more – since some time mobile version of the secure electronic signature (and time stamp) is available, which means that any documents can be signed also in a smart phone;
      • notaries of Latvia perform their duties and execute documents electronically with secure digital signature and a time stamp;
      • State and majority of municipal authorities are welcoming electronic communication;

      and many more electronic solutions.

      Irrespective of that the mindset of “paper prevails over other solutions” is still there in society. Attack of Covid-19 literally pushed the society towards digitalization in mindset too and actually understanding that tools and solutions required for remote business handing and employment are already there, now we only need to understand what would be the procedures to correctly implement those in real time and every day, because:

      • the old processes employees and employers are used to, do not work anymore;
      • both parties – employees and employers lack clarity on how to manage work with no stress or at least at proportionate stress level;
      • the remote work requires new skills not only for employees but also for management. How about control over employee work, what are the ways to manage it if all the team is not in one room;
      • no matter how digitally developed is the country each individual is though on different level of development in this respect, and this becomes true challenge when it comes to day-to-day remote work and cooperation;
      • and last but not least – the employers have invested in tools and equipment within on prems concept, whereas remote work needs different type of investment, more developed tools and IT security guarantees.

      This means that each company needs an actual transformation plan irrespective of the business it operates in. The digitalization is inevitable, it is a rational optimization of resources used, development of new skills and taking each employee on a whole new level of professional performance – individually and team wise. For companies digitalization increases competitiveness and readiness to unexpected circumstances and sustainability of business operation.

      So summarizing all the aspects analyzed during this article, Covid-19 has made people think not only, what is actual value of the employment and how one can concurrently protect employees and its business, but also how much of processes we can transform in an e-approach immediately and where we still need know-how and investment.
      Transforming into a Gig economy requires much more than overnight meditation with one thought – this shall pass. It is a new way of living.

      On March 31, 2020 the details of emergency measures where shared in a press conference and the scheme was published simultaneously. This memo sets out the main lines of the NOW scheme.

      Loss of turnover

      Under the NOW scheme, employers can apply for an allowance for labour costs if they expect a loss of turnover of at least 20%. The loss of turnover of at least 20% must occur over a three-month period starting on the first day of the months March, April or May 2020. It must always relate to a consecutive period of three months.

      The turnover is compared with 25% of the turnover from January to December 2019.

      The loss of turnover is determined at group level. If a group as a whole has a loss of turnover of less than 20%, no compensation will be paid to any individual parts of that group that are still inactive. Net turnover is taken as the net turnover, i.e. the income from the supply of goods and services from the business of the legal entity less discounts and the like and tax levied on the turnover.

      Wages and salaries

      The employer must pay the wages to the employees in full, but can apply to the UWV (social security insurer for employees) for an allowance for labour costs. On the other hand, the employee must also be fully available to perform work.

      The NOW scheme also covers employees with employees with a flexible contract insofar as they continue to be employed and receive wages from the employer during the subsidy period. The wage bill of all employees with a social security wage (virtually all) are eligible for the subsidy. These are, for example, employees with a so-called fictitious employment contract for employee insurance, but not voluntarily insured persons.

      Wages up to € 9,538 gross per month are considered, the amount surpassing the same is not considered for the subsidy. Additional charges and costs such as employer contributions and employee contributions to pension and the accrual of holiday allowance are also compensated. A lump-sum surcharge for employer charges of 30% applies.

      Advance payment

       The advance payment provided under the NOW is, in principle, based on the wage bill for the January 2020 return period. If there are no wage data for January 2020, the UWV will assume November 2019. If there are no data for this period either, no subsidy can be granted.

      If the wage bill for the months March-April-May is lower, the amount of the subsidy will be reduced by 90% of the amount by which the wage bill fell. The settlement is an incentive to keep employees employed as much as possible for the hours they worked before the severe drop in turnover.

      Calculation

      The amount of the allowance for wage costs depends on the drop in turnover and amounts to a maximum of 90% of the wage bill. For example: If 100% of the turnover is lost, the allowance amounts to 90% of the wage and salary bill of the employer and if 50% of the turnover is lost, the allowance amounts to 45% of the wage and salary bill of the employer.

      Extension of the arrangement

      It was previously announced that the period of the allowance, which is 3 months, may be extended once for a further period of 3 months. The Cabinet now announces that this extension has not yet been decided; it will be decided before 1 June 2020, so that any second tranche will be in line with the first application period ending on 31 May 2020. In case of extension, further conditions may be added to the scheme.

      Prohibition of dismissal

      When applying on the grounds of the NOW, the employer undertakes in advance not to apply for dismissal on the grounds of business economics for his employees during the period for which the allowance is received. The employer is therefore expected not to apply to the UWV for permission to terminate an employment contract on the grounds of business economics in the period from 18 March to 31 May 2020 inclusive. The prohibition on dismissal does not apply to dismissal applications submitted to the UWV in the period from 1 March to 17 March 2020.

      If a request for dismissal is nevertheless made and this request is not withdrawn (or not withdrawn on time), a correction will be made when the subsidy is determined. When the subsidy is determined, the wages of the employees for whom dismissal has been requested will be determined. This wage is then increased by 50%. This wage plus the 50% increase is deducted from the total wage sum on which the final amount of the subsidy is based.

      Submitting the request

      The UWV will be charged with processing the application. The applications are expected to be submitted on 6 April next. The first advance payments will be made within 2 to 4 weeks. This advance payment will in any case amount to 80% of the grant.

      Questo articolo si propone di illustrare le nuove norme in materia di parità di genere introdotte dal RDL 6/2019 applicabili a tutte le tipologie di imprese (indipendentemente dal numero di dipendenti), ed in particolare alle imprese che occupino almeno 50 dipendenti.

      La principale novità in questo senso consiste in un obbligo a carico delle aziende con almeno 50 dipendenti di attuare un Piano che promuova la parità di trattamento, in conformità alle disposizioni degli articoli 45 e seguenti della LOIEMH.

      Per quanto riguarda i contenuti e le modalità di attuazione del Piano di Parità nelle aziende, segnaliamo le seguenti novità:

      • I temi ed i contenuti minimi che devono essere inclusi nel singolo Piano di Parità sono indicati in modo esaustivo.
      • E’ introdotta un’analisi della sotto-rappresentazione femminile in azienda quale tema da includere nel Piano.
      • La valutazione che le imprese devono compiere in fase di elaborazione del Piano di Parità deve essere oggetto di negoziazione con il rappresentante legale dei lavoratori.
      • È istituito un Registro dei Piano di Parità delle imprese, nel quale vanno iscritti tutti i Piani di Parità adottato dalle imprese, indipendentemente dal numero di lavoratori occupati.

      L’RDL 6/2019 introduce peraltro una nuova formulazione dell’articolo 28 dello Statuto dei Lavoratori, la quale sancisce l’obbligo per le imprese di conformarsi al principio della parità retributiva tra uomini e donne, stabilendo una serie di misure e obblighi a carico delle imprese, al fine di garantire l’effettivo rispetto della parità retributiva.

      In particolare, le nuove misure inserite nell’articolo 28 dello Statuto sono le seguenti:

      • Il testo definisce la nozione di “lavoro di pari valore“, al fine di promuovere un criterio unico ed eliminare ogni dubbio al riguardo.
      • Le imprese sono tenute a mantenere un Registro delle Retribuzioni, riportando i valori medi delle retribuzioni, delle componenti retributive supplementari e delle percezioni extra-salariali del proprio personale, differenziando i dati per genere e distribuendoli per gruppi professionali, categorie professionali o posizioni di lavoro di pari valore.
      • Il Registro delle Retribuzioni dovrà essere reso accessibile al rappresentante legale dei lavoratori.
      • Nelle imprese che occupano almeno 50 lavoratori con una retribuzione media relativa ai lavoratori di un genere superiore di almeno il 25% rispetto a quella dell’altro, è necessario inserire nel Registro delle Retribuzioni una motivazione di tale disparità, certificando che essa è dovuta a ragioni diverse dal genere dei lavoratori.

      L’inosservanza degli obblighi in materia di parità e, in particolare, di quelli attinenti al Piano di Parità ed alla parità retributiva tra uomini e donne, può comportare l’applicazione di pesanti sanzioni da parte dell’Ispettorato del Lavoro e della “Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social”.

      On 28 May 2019 the Dutch Parliament adopted new employment legislation: The Balanced Labour Market Act (‘Wet Arbeidsmarkt in Balans’), hereinafter the WAB. The most important changes are discussed below.

      New cumulation ground for dismissal

      The legislation introduces a new ground for dismissal. This makes it a bit easier for employers to dismiss employees. Dismissal will also be possible if there is a sum of circumstances, the so-called cumulation ground. Now the employer must fully comply with 1 of the 8 grounds for dismissal. This new ground gives the court the opportunity to combine circumstances. The employee can receive an extra half transitional allowance (on top of the current statutory transitional allowance) if the cumulation ground is used for the dismissal.

      Severance: Transitional allowance

      The new act arranges that employees will have the right to a transitional allowance immediately from the first start of the employment contract, instead of only after two years.

      The accrual of transitional allowance is reduced in case of long-term employment. The accrual for everyone, regardless of the age of the employee, is one third of a monthly salary.

      There will be a scheme for small employers to compensate the transitional allowance if they have to end their business due to retirement or illness.

      Extending the scope of the chain of employment agreements

      The current period after which successive fixed-term employment contracts legally change into an employment contract for an indefinite period is two years. The WAB broadens the succession of temporary contracts. Under the WAB it will still be possible to enter into a maximum of three temporary contracts. The maximum period of fixed-term contracts will be extended to three years. This chain of successive fixed-term employment contracts can be broken by an interruption period of six months.

      It is possible to shorten the interruption period between a chain of fixed-term contracts in a Collective Bargaining Agreement from six to three months if there is recurring temporary work that can be done for a maximum of nine months a year.

      An exception to the chain provision will be made for temporary workers in primary education who replace employees who became ill.

      Call agreement

      A new definition is introduced in Article 7: 628a paragraph 9 of the Dutch Civil Code: the ‘call agreement’. In call agreements the number of working hours per period and the salary are not established upfront but can vary depending on for example the amount of work available. Under the WAB an employee must be called by the employer at least four days in advance. If the employer does not follow this regulation, the employee is not obligated to come in for work. Call workers retain the right to wages for the period for which they were called if the work is cancelled less than four days in advance. The employer is obliged to offer the call worker an employment contract after a year for the average number of hours that he has worked in the previous twelve months. In Collective Bargaining Agreements alternative arrangements can be made under certain conditions.

      Payrolling

      Payroll employees will receive the same legal position and primary and secondary employment conditions as employees who are employed by the employer.

      Payroll employees are also entitled to an ‘adequate’ pension scheme.

      Unemployment benefit premium differentiation

      In order to make employment contracts for an indefinite period of time more attractive for employers, the WAB arranges for an unemployment benefit premium differentiation between permanent and temporary contracts. A lower premium will apply for employment contracts for an indefinite period of time and a higher premium for fixed-term employment contracts.

      Commencing date

      The intended commencing date of the WAB is 1 January 2020. The right to an adequate pension scheme for payrolling starts on 1 January 2021.

      The author of this post is Regine de Wit.

      10 practical aspects to consider for an adequate timing

      Meanwhile similar legal standards apply in most industrialized countries if an employment relationship shall be terminated; however, in every jurisdiction some specifics still need to be considered. The following ten aspects may be a first general guideline for the termination of an employment contract in Germany, in particular regarding its timing.

      1. In some cases notice needs to be given within a two-week period

      In case of gross misconduct an employer may be entitled to terminate an employment relationship forthwith. However, if notice of termination is not served to the employee within two weeks after acknowledgement of the respective facts, this right is forfeited.

      1. Notice has to be given in writing

      The notice has to be signed by the legal representative of the employer and delivered to the employee. Neither a transmission by facsimile nor an email with a scanned copy is sufficient. If the representative is not on site, timing may become an essential aspect of the termination process.

      1. Ordinary dismissal may be prohibited by a collective bargaining agreement

      Collective bargaining agreements often provide a ban on ordinary dismissal under certain circumstances (e.g. based on the age of the employee). A careful assessment of all applicable collective bargaining agreements before a termination is therefore indispensable.

      1. Insufficient information of the works councils may lead to an invalid termination

      The establishment of a works council is not mandatory in Germany. However, if it is established, it needs to be notified and heard before every termination of an employment contract. The notification must contain a sufficient description of the grounds for the termination, otherwise the termination may be deemed invalid. Having been notified, the works council has one week (in some cases: three days) to object. Any termination before such term without consent of the works council would be deemed invalid as well. Timing may therefore become again an essential aspect of the termination process.

      1. General dismissal protection is related to seniority and size of the establishment

      General dismissal protection is basically applicable in establishments with more than 10 employees. Exceptions may apply in favour of those employees whose employment relationships commenced already before 1st January 2004. In addition, the respective employee needs to have at least a seniority of six month. If these criteria are met, the termination has to be justified by operational reasons, misconduct or personal incapacity as set out in the Dismissal Protection Act.

      1. Some terminations may need prior permission

      Irrespective of the application of the afore mentioned Dismissal Protection Act some kind of terminations (e.g. employees on parental leave) may need a special permission of the works council, the Labour Court or the respective public authority as applicable. These procedures may last from some days up to two years.

      1. There is no general claim for severance payment in case of an unfair dismissal

      Aside from those agreed in termination agreements there is no general claim for severance payment in case of an unfair dismissal. In general, the statutory remedy will only be reinstatement and back pay. Only under certain circumstances each party may apply for the termination of the employment relationship and a severance payment in front of the Labour Court. However, in most of the cases parties end up in a voluntary termination agreement.

      1. Non-competes may lead to extensive payments and cannot be withdrawn forthwith unilaterally without cause

      A binding covenant to non-compete leads to a compensation payment of at least 50 % of the former salary for every month of its duration. Even in case of a justified termination it may only be terminated with a notice period of one year. However, both parties may agree upon its immediate suspension in a termination agreement.

      1. Any termination agreement has to be in written form as well

      Also a termination agreement needs to fulfil the same formal requirements as set out already above under point 2. Again, if the representative is not on site, timing may become an essential aspect of the bargaining process.

      1. The forfeiture clause of a termination agreement may not cover all claims 

      Termination agreements often contain general forfeiture clauses at their end, covering also those potential claims which have not been explicitly mentioned or identified by the parties. However, some claims (e.g. pension claims) may not be covered by such a (general) forfeiture clause.

      Please note that these ten aspects contain general information only. Further details as well as possible exceptions therefore need to be checked on a case-by-case basis by a professional advisor.

       

      Tha author of this post is Alexander Lentz

      L’imprenditore che intenda concentrarsi esclusivamente sul proprio core business ha la possibilità di ricorrere ad altri imprenditori, a cui affidare la realizzazione di tutte quelle opere e di quei servizi comunque necessari per la gestione dell’impresa.

      Il termine tecnico che si utilizza per definire un tale modus operandi è quello di “esternalizzazione” di parte dell’attività imprenditoriale e, solitamente, l’accordo che regola tale tipologia di collaborazione è un contratto di appalto, vale a dire il contratto con il quale una parte si impegna a compiere un’opera o un servizio a favore di un’altra e verso un corrispettivo in denaro.

      Esempio di contratto di appalto d’opera potrebbe essere il contratto con il quale un’impresa edile si obbliga a costruire un palazzo per una società immobiliare; esempio di appalto di servizi potrebbe essere il contratto che si stipula con un’impresa di pulizie per la pulizia del proprio stabile.

      L’appalto ha per oggetto una prestazione di “fare” nell’ambito della quale un soggetto, detto appaltatore, si impegna a svolgere un’attività determinata, fornendo ed organizzando i mezzi necessari e gestendo la realizzazione a proprio rischio; è poi necessario che l’attività sia organizzata in forma di impresa e che quindi l’appaltatore sia, esso stesso, un imprenditore.

      In Italia lo strumento dell’appalto ha sempre avuto grande diffusione ed utilizzo e da sempre rappresenta lo strumento privilegiato per esternalizzare attività poco remunerative nell’ambito di realtà imprenditoriali complesse: obiettivo di chi ricorre all’appalto è quello di realizzare efficienza in termini di risorse, sia economiche (riduzione dei costi) che materiali (riduzione di personale e delle responsabilità connesse alla sua gestione).

      Quanto sopra vale anche per gli imprenditori esteri che gestiscono o decidono di avviare un’attività in Italia: l’appalto rappresenta un ottimo strumento per delegare ad altri soggetti, in loco e con una specifica expertise in materia, la gestione di problematiche complesse quali: l’ottenimento di autorizzazioni pubbliche, l’approvvigionamento di particolari materie prime, il reclutamento sul territorio di risorse umane qualificate.

      L’esternalizzazione della attività non è un fenomeno omogeneo e le esigenze che spesso si presentano in concreto sono suscettibili di prestarsi anche a differenti soluzioni, a seconda dell’oggetto della prestazione, della tipologia e delle caratteristiche del committente o della particolare natura degli interessi coinvolti.

      Proprio in virtù delle suddette particolarità molto spesso, in luogo del contratto di appalto, l’imprenditore fa ricorso al contratto di subfornitura.

      Con il contratto di subfornitura un imprenditore si impegna a effettuare, per conto di una impresa committente, lavorazioni su prodotti semilavorati o su materie prime forniti dalla committente medesima, o si impegna a fornire all’impresa prodotti o servizi destinati ad essere incorporati o comunque ad essere utilizzati nell’ambito dell’attività economica del committente o nella produzione di un bene complesso, in conformità a progetti esecutivi, conoscenze tecniche e tecnologiche, modelli o prototipi forniti dall’impresa committente.

      Sintetizzando e forse banalizzando fiorenti dibattiti dottrinali e giurisprudenziali, potremmo dire che molto spesso la differenza tra un appalto di servizi e la “subfornitura” consiste nel fatto che in caso di subfornitura le attività oggetto del contratto vengono svolte su materiali del committente e/o consistono nella realizzazione di beni o servizi funzionali al processo produttivo del committente; in ogni caso, la subfornitura comporta la “dipendenza tecnologica” (ed anche economica) del subfornitore nei confronti del committente.

      Proprio il decentramento e la dissociazione che l’esternalizzazione di processi e attività realizza tra il “gestore” dell’attività esternalizzata ed il fruitore finale della stessa, suscita da sempre grande attenzione da parte del legislatore italiano.

      Attenzione finalizzata a tutelare soprattutto i dipendenti coinvolti nell’attività esternalizzata in caso di eventi nefasti idonei a privarli di garanzie legali di cui, invece, possono continuare a godere i dipendenti dell’appaltante committente (pensiamo ad esempio alla sofferenza finanziaria dell’appaltatore/subfornitore, o addirittura al suo coinvolgimento in procedure concorsuali, da cui derivi il mancato pagamento di retribuzioni e contributi).

      Per tali ragioni, ormai a far data dal 2003, il legislatore italiano ha introdotto un oneroso regime di solidarietà tra committente e appaltatore, nonché con ciascuno degli eventuali subappaltatori che, entro il limite di due anni dalla cessazione dell’appalto, sono obbligati in solido a corrispondere ai lavoratori i trattamenti retributivi, comprese le quote di trattamento di fine rapporto, nonché i contributi previdenziali e i premi assicurativi dovuti in relazione al periodo di esecuzione del contratto di appalto.

      Sino al mese di dicembre del 2017 la giurisprudenza di merito era consolidata nel ritenere che il regime della responsabilità solidale fosse applicabile esclusivamente all’appalto di servizi e non alla subfornitura. Circostanza questa che rendeva il ricorso alla subfornitura potenzialmente meno oneroso per il committente.

      Con sentenza n. 254 del 6 dicembre scorso, tuttavia, la prospettiva è stata completamente ribaltata dalla Corte Costituzionale che chiamata a pronunciarsi in materia ha stabilito l’applicazione estensiva del principio della responsabilità solidale anche tra committente e subfornitore.

      La sentenza parte dall’analisi della nota questione giurisprudenziale circa la configurazione giuridica del contratto di subfornitura e, in particolare, circa l’autonomia o meno del contratto di fornitura rispetto al contratto di appalto.

      Senza entrare nel merito del dibattito giurisprudenziale esistente, la Corte Costituzionale sostiene che, al di là dell’orientamento seguito quanto all’assimilazione o meno della subfornitura al contratto di appalto, è possibile operare l’estensione della responsabilità del committente/appaltatore ai crediti di lavoro dei dipendenti del subfornitore.

      Ciò in quanto l’introduzione della norma sulla responsabilità solidale in ipotesi di appalto, non può giustificare l’esclusione della medesima garanzia nei confronti dei dipendenti del subfornitore, atteso che la tutela del soggetto che assicura un’attività lavorativa indiretta non può non estendersi a tutti i livelli di decentramento.

      Sulla base di tali considerazioni, dunque, il principio della responsabilità solidale va correttamente interpretato nel senso che il committente/appaltatore è obbligato in solido (anche) con il subfornitore, relativamente ai crediti lavorativi, contributivi e assicurativi dei dipendenti di questi, al pari quindi di quanto lo è verso i dipendenti del subappaltatore.

      In sostanza il committente risponde direttamente, salvo successiva rivalsa, per le rivendicazioni economiche avanzate dai dipendenti dell’appaltatore, del subappaltatore e del subfornitore e di tutti i lavoratori che dovessero essere stati utilizzati nell’attività esternalizzata in relazione a: i) crediti retributivi maturati durante il periodo di correlazione tra committente ed impresa che ha eseguito i lavori, ivi compresi, “pro – quota”, quelli relativi al trattamento di fine rapporto; e ii) contributi previdenziali e premi assicurativi dovuti per il periodo di esecuzione della prestazione.

      Il lavoratore può chiedere direttamente al committente il pagamento di quanto maturato nei confronti del proprio datore. Il committente, chiamato in giudizio, non può mai chiedere l’escussione del coobbligato in solido: deve pagare salva l’azione di regresso.

      Il committente quindi, nonostante l’esigenza iniziale fosse quella di fare efficienza e ridurre costi, può trovarsi esposto ad un rischio economico molto maggiore rispetto al costo risparmiato, soprattutto se le rivendicazioni economiche riguardano situazioni non controllabili a priori: facciamo riferimento ad esempio, all’eventuale personale utilizzato “in maniera irregolare” dall’appaltatore/subfornitore, oppure alle rivendicazioni connesse allo svolgimento di mansioni superiori, od anche alla richiesta di lavoro straordinario al di fuori dei parametri di legge.

      Esistono naturalmente sistemi e meccanismi idonei a contenere il rischio o, comunque, idonei a garantire al committente maggiore controllo sul corretto funzionamento della filiera esternalizzata.

      Tra questi, ad esempio, alla possibilità di prevedere contrattualmente strumenti di tutela economica quali fideiussioni e manleve.

      Ma esiste anche la possibilità di implementare, sempre nel contratto, un adeguato sistema di controllo sulla corretta gestione del personale nonché sull’erogazione di retribuzioni, contributi e premi assicurativi.

      Alla luce di quanto sopra, concludiamo individuando nella figura del consulente esperto in materia di diritto del lavoro il miglior supporto per l’imprenditore che intenda avventurarsi in maniera consapevole e sicura in un processo di esternalizzazione.

      L’autore di questo articolo è Domenica Cotroneo.

      Il distacco transnazionale di lavoratori è quel meccanismo attraverso cui le imprese di uno Stato membro prestano servizi in un altro Stato membro inviando direttamente i propri dipendenti nel territorio di quest’ultimo.

      Nel corso degli ultimi 20 anni tale fenomeno è cresciuto in maniera rilevante a livello europeo, soprattutto a seguito dell’ingresso nell’Unione dei Paesi dell’est, che avevano – e in parte continuano ad avere – un costo del lavoro sensibilmente più basso di quello degli altri Stati membri.

      Il fenomeno è stato quindi oggetto di diversi interventi del legislatore europeo e di quelli nazionali, nonché di alcune rilevanti decisioni della Corte di Giustizia. Esso si pone infatti in relazione con diversi diritti fondamentali riconosciuti dall’Unione e richiede un equilibrato bilanciamento degli interessi in gioco.

      Occorre garantire le libertà di circolazione di lavoratori,  capitali e merci e, in particolare, la libera prestazione dei servizi (art. 56 TFUE), salvaguardando al contempo la leale concorrenza tra le imprese e la tutela dei lavoratori. Il legislatore comunitario intervenne sul tema con la Direttiva 96/71/CE (attuata in Italia col D. Lgs. 72/2000), poi integrata dalla Direttiva 2014/67/UE (attuata in Italia col D. Lgs. 136/2016).

      Il legislatore europeo e quello nazionale perseguono con le citate disposizioni due principali obiettivi:

      – contrastare i distacchi fittizi attraverso società di comodo, le cosiddette letterbox company, garantendo equilibrio concorrenziale a livello europeo;

      – garantire uniformità di trattamento e di tutela ai lavoratori coinvolti, impedendo fenomeni di ‘dumping sociale’.

      Per raggiungere questi obiettivi viene rafforzato il sistema di cooperazione amministrativa tra le diverse autorità ispettive nazionali,  vengono individuati criteri predefiniti per la valutazione dell’autenticità del distacco e vengono stabilite condizioni minime da garantire ai lavoratori.

      Per valutare l’autenticità del distacco, l’art. 4 della direttiva 2014/67/UE (recepito nell’art. 3 della legge italiana) indica alcune caratteristiche da prendere in considerazione con riferimento alle imprese coinvolte e ai lavoratori distaccati.

      Per le imprese sono considerati rilevanti i seguenti elementi:

      1. a) il luogo in cui l’impresa ha la propria sede legale e amministrativa, utilizza uffici, paga imposte e contributi previdenziali ed è iscritta alla camera di commercio;
      2. b) il luogo in cui i lavoratori sono assunti e quello da cui sono distaccati;
      3. c) la legge applicabile ai contratti stipulati dall’impresa con i suoi lavoratori e con i suoi clienti;
      4. d) il luogo in cui l’impresa esercita la propria attività economica principale e in cui è occupato il suo personale amministrativo;
      5. e) il numero dei contratti eseguiti o l’ammontare del fatturato realizzato dall’impresa nello Stato membro di stabilimento, tenendo conto della specificità delle piccole e medie imprese e di quelle di nuova costituzione.

      Per i lavoratori vengono prese in considerazione queste circostanze:

      1. a) lo svolgimento dell’attività lavorativa per un periodo di tempo limitato in un altro Stato membro;
      2. b) la data di inizio del distacco;
      3. c) l’esercizio abituale dell’attività lavorativa nello Stato di provenienza;
      4. d) il ritorno a prestare attività lavorativa nello Stato cui è stato distaccato;
      5. e) la natura e le modalità di svolgimento dell’attività;
      6. f) il rimborso da parte del datore di lavoro distaccante delle spese di viaggio, vitto o alloggio  e le modalità di pagamento;
      7. g) eventuali periodi precedenti in cui la medesima attività è stata svolta dallo stesso o da un altro lavoratore distaccato.

      Tutte queste circostanze devono essere considerate nel loro complesso, nessuna è di per sé decisiva e spetta alle autorità nazionali la valutazione finale dell’autenticità o meno del distacco.

      L’eventuale accertamento di un distacco fittizio determina rilevanti sanzioni amministrative a carico sia dell’impresa distaccante che di quella utilizzatrice, nonché la loro corresponsabilità per i crediti dei lavoratori.

      Il legislatore italiano ha inoltre rafforzato tale previsione: in simmetria con quanto previsto per i casi di intermediazione illecita di mano d’opera, ha infatti stabilito che, se il distacco non risulta autentico, “il lavoratore è considerato a tutti gli effetti alle dipendenze del soggetto che ne ha utilizzato la prestazione” (art. 3 legge italiana).

      Ai fini della tutela dei lavoratori e dell’equilibrio concorrenziale, l’art. 3 della direttiva 96/71/CE (art. 4 della legge italiana) stabilisce che, qualunque sia la legislazione applicabile al rapporto di lavoro, gli Stati membri devono far sì che ai lavoratori distaccati sul loro territorio siano garantite, per il periodo del distacco, condizioni di lavoro analoghe a quelle dei lavoratori nazionali. In particolare, i lavoratori distaccati devono godere di un trattamento equivalente in relazione a:

      – periodi massimi di lavoro e minimi di riposo;

      – durata minima delle ferie annuali retribuite;

      – tariffe minime salariali;

      – sicurezza e salute sul lavoro;

      – tutela per lavoratrici madri, bambini e giovani;

      – parità di trattamento uomo/donna e principi di non discriminazione.

      Dal punto di vista pratico, l’aspetto di più complessa valutazione riguarda le tariffe minime salariali. Nei diversi paesi dell’Unione esse sono infatti definite in maniera diversa, da fonti diverse (legge/fonti amministrative/contratti collettivi) e sono composte da molte voci, non sempre sovrapponibili.

      D’altro canto, gli aspetti economici sono determinanti per imprese e lavoratori per valutare l’opportunità e la convenienza del distacco.

      Proprio per queste ragioni, la Corte di Giustizia ha chiarito che il confronto tra le diverse tariffe nazionali deve essere condotto confrontando l’importo complessivo e non le singole voci salariali. La Corte ha inoltre precisato che il confronto deve essere limitato alle voci retributive in senso stretto, cioè in diretta relazione con la prestazione, escludendo per esempio i premi supplementari. Infine la giurisprudenza comunitaria ha chiarito che le voci retributive da prendere in considerazione devono essere accessibili e chiare per il datore di lavoro distaccante.

      Da ultimo le disposizioni europee impongono agli Stati membri di consentire ai lavoratori distaccati sul loro territorio l’accesso agli strumenti di tutela, anche giudiziaria, predisposti per i lavoratori nazionali.

      A questo fine, in Italia si è esplicitamente prevista la facoltà, per i lavoratori distaccati, di agire sia in sede amministrativa che giudiziale (art. 5 legge italiana).

      In Spagna il licenziamento viene classificato individuale o collettivo, a seconda del numero di lavoratori assoggettati a tale misura.

      L’articolo 51 dello Statuto dei Lavoratori considera “licenziamento collettivo” l’estinzione del rapporto di lavoro causata da motivazioni economiche, tecniche, organizzative o di produzione quando, nel periodo di novanta giorni, coinvolga: (i) almeno dieci lavoratori di un’impresa con meno di 100 dipendenti; (ii) il dieci per cento dei lavoratori in una impresa che abbia tra cento e trecento dipendenti; (iii) trenta lavoratori nelle imprese con più di trecento dipendenti.

      Il licenziamento potrà essere impugnato in sede giudiziale, entro 20 giorni lavorativi e potrà essere dichiarato legittimo (procedente), illegittimo (improcedente) o nullo.

      Il licenziamento si considera legittimo quando è confermato l’inadempimento da parte del lavoratore contestato dall’imprenditore nella comunicazione del licenziamento e sono stati soddisfatti i requisiti formali, quali (i) la comunicazione per iscritto al lavoratore; (ii) una sufficiente descrizione dei fatti che hanno determinato il licenziamento e (iii) l’indicazione della data a partire della quale il licenziamento sarà efficace.

      Sarà dichiarato illegittimo il licenziamento privo dei requisiti citati nel paragrafo precedente.

      Il licenziamento è nullo nei seguenti casi: (i) violazione dei diritti fondamentali o libertà pubblica; (ii) il lavoratore è una vittima di violenza di genere; (iii) salvo che si dimostri la giusta causa, nei casi di: lavoratrici incinte, con permesso di maternità, paternità o allattamento, o con riduzione della giornata lavorativa per curare un minore di dodici anni o una persona con una incapacità fisica, psichica o sensoriale.

      Nel caso in cui il licenziamento sia dichiarato illegittimo, l’imprenditore entro cinque giorni dovrà scegliere se reintegrare il lavoratore nel posto di lavoro (e pagargli le mensilità trascorse tra il licenziamento e la notificazione della sentenza, i cosiddetti salarios de tramitación) oppure pagargli l’indennità, il cui importo dipende dalla durata del rapporto, come si analizzerà di seguito. Nel caso in cui il lavoratore licenziato sia un rappresentante sindacale, la scelta tra le due opzioni spetterà al lavoratore e non all’imprenditore.

      Se il licenziamento è dichiarato nullo, l’imprenditore avrà l’obbligo di reintegrare il lavoratore nel posto di lavoro e potrà essere condannato al risarcimento dei danni assieme al pagamento delle mensilità trascorse tra il licenziamento e la notifica della sentenza.

      Come accennato in precedenza, l’indennità dovuta al lavoratore (alternativa al reintegro per i licenziamenti illegittimi) dipende dal momento in cui è iniziato il rapporto di lavoro.

      L’indennità da pagare nel caso del licenziamento di un lavoratore assunto dopo il 12 febbraio 2012, sarà pari a 33 giorni di retribuzione per ogni anno lavorato.

      Nel caso in cui il lavoratore licenziato sia stato assunto prima del 12 febbraio 2012, l’indennità verrà calcolata come segue:

      • per il periodo trascorso tra la firma del contratto e il 12 febbraio 2012, l’indennità è pari a 45 giorni di retribuzione per ogni anno di rapporto;
      • sarà pari a 33 giorni di retribuzione per ogni anno lavorato dopo il 12 febbraio 2012.

      In ogni caso l’indennità non potrà ammontare a più di 720 giorni di retribuzione, salvo il caso in cui, dal calcolo dell’indennità del periodo precedente il 12 febbraio 2012, risultasse un numero di giorni superiore a 720, nel quale l’indennità non potrà essere superiore a quarantadue mensilità.

      Inoltre è importante ricordare che l’indennità in caso di licenziamento è esente da qualunque imposta fino a 180.000 euro. Per la cifra superiore, la tassazione sarà parificata ai redditi di lavoro, con una riduzione del 30% nel caso di rapporto di lavoro terminato da almeno due anni.

      Latvia - Legalmondo

      Latvia – Establishing a company
      • Diritto societario
      • Lettonia

      Distacco transnazionale di lavoratori in Europa

      20 Marzo 2018

      • Europa
      • Lavoro

      Today during Covid–19 circumstances Gig economy approach has become more necessity rather than theoretical possibility. But still transformation of Latvian business and employment market does not run so smooth. Why so?

      At the end of year 2019 the State Labour Inspectorate of Latvia in cooperation with private partners released results of a research on new forms of employment presence and potential in Latvia (http://www.vdi.gov.lv/files/jnf_gala_zinojums.pdf). The results of this research as well of other international researches are rather controversial as do not conform to the real situation in the country.

      Although the aforementioned researches claim that employers in Latvia are supporters of old-style employment and are not willing to change the practice, in fact the laws of Latvia in effect do not provide flexibility on the approach of employment.

      Covid-19 has badly hit a lot of economies, and actually highlighted the largest challenges – employers to save their business would like to pay less, whereas employees need flexibility as they are required to work remotely and combine their private and work lives.

      In this article an analysis of how general conditions of employment applicable today correspond to frame of main five aspects of a Gig economy will be provided.

      Employment “one to one” or “one to many”

      Gig economy considers that traditional employment has no longer place in our world. The employment should be available among one employer and many employees, many employers and many employees or one employee and many employers, thus employment being in each contractual relations part time, nevertheless all employees are jointly and severally liable for the result of work.

      Labour Law of Latvia keeps traditions of employment – one employer and one employee. Likewise part time work is permitted just in statutorily listed cases like to replace an employee in long term absence, in case of increase of the workload in the company, in emergency cases, and in certain areas like culture, sports, banking, education and diplomacy. Moreover, length of a fixed-term employment may not exceed 5 years in total (including extensions). As a result of this majority of employments are open ended.

      In order to solve the burden imposed by law, employers often use potential employees as external service providers based on a Service Agreement in this manner imitating self employment. Self employment for a payor is less expensive tax wise, which led authorities to introduce limiting measures for flexibility of entrepreneurs.
      In the Law on Personal Income Tax criteria of employment per se where introduced. Namely, an agreement with an individual can be deemed as contractual relationships subject to payment of salary and accordingly payroll if at least one of the following conditions has been ascertained:

      • the individual has economic dependence upon the party to whom he/she provides services;
      • lack of assumption of financial risks in the fulfilment of work or no liability in respect to lost debtor debts;
      • integration of the contracted individual into the company to which services are provided (e.g. existence of a work or recreational areas, a duty to observe internal rules of the company);
      • availability of holidays and paid leave in accordance with schedules of the company;
      • work shall be performed under management or control of the other contracting party – the customer, and the individual is deprived of possibility to involve in the service provision his/ her personnel or sub-contractors; or
      • the individual is not owner of the assets used while rendering services to the company.

      Respectively in case the State Revenue Service of Latvia (tax authority) detects presence of the criteria listed, it shall be entitled to reclassify the contractual relations of the seemingly independent parties into employment relations as a result of which remuneration paid to the individual would be subject to full payroll as any other salary gained on basis of Employment Agreement. The tax expense threshold the companies playing with by out of box employment results in significant difference:

      • payroll in case of employment – progressive personal income tax between 20% to 23% depending on the income (at certain level the annual income of an individual may though be subject to maximum rate of the personal income tax – 31.4%); social security contributions of 35.09%; majority of these expenses being on the employer’s shoulders; whereas
      • taxes applicable in case of self-employment – progressive personal income tax between 20% to 31.4% depending on the income; social security contributions of 32.15%, basis of these compulsory contributions being a freely chosen income; in this case if the contracted individual is a registered economic operator – the taxes are all his/her liability, whereas if the individual has not registered with tax authorities independent economic activity, the taxes shall be withheld at the moment of disbursement of the remuneration and paid into the State budget by the company contracting the individual.

      In circumstances of Covid–19 the traditional employment scenarios chosen by entrepreneurs due to rather strict statutory rules have heavily impacted operation of businesses as employers had to either dismiss their employees or let them in idleness with crisis management allowance established by the State as support during Covid–19.

      The outcome showed that applying of different type of “employment” structures, like contracting specialists on the need to basis or crowdsourcing of employees among numerous employers could have facilitated challenges the employers face today in many ways – provide availability of different specialists for the project/ time period required, limit expenses in respect to the employees whom the companies were forced to let in idleness, and alike, all of this still keeping the business running.

      Employment volatility as new formula for flexibility

      As described earlier, present requirements of the Labour Law of Latvia require employment relationships to be based on clear and sustainable rules thus ensuring predictable and long term support to the employees, both in terms of employment and social security.
      The strict approach is even more secured by strict statutory conditions and notice periods under which an employee can be dismissed:

      With a notice of immediate effect:

      • while performing work the employee has acted unlawfully and therefore has lost trust of the employer;
      • while performing the work employee is in a state of intoxication (e.g. alcohol, drugs, other); or
      • the employee is unable to perform the contracted work due to a state of health, and this is confirmed by a medical opinion;

      With a 10 days notice:

      • in case employee has without justifiable reason materially violated the contracted work order;
      • while performing the work the employee has acted contrary to good morals, and such action is incompatible with the continuation of the employment;
      • the employee has grossly violated work safety rules and endangered safety and health of other persons; or
      • due to temporary incapacity of the employee for work for more than 6 and up to 12 months;

      With a one month notice:

      • if the employee is in lack of sufficient professional skills to perform the contracted work;
      • an employee previously employed in the particular position has been reinstated to work;
      • in case of staff redundancy (presuming that employer will not hire immediately new employee in same position); or
      • in case the employer is being liquidated.

      Having seen the list of statutory conditions one would definitely agree that only few circumstances are of a regular character, meaning can be actually applied, whereas the rest are seldom met. Sure there is also available an exception out of this strongly established frame – to terminate employment without any specific reason if the employee and employer can reach a mutual agreement. However that may be a challenge – employees are not obliged to participate in negotiations with employers and can simply walk away.

      So how much of volatility and flexibility can be reached in such strongly fixed statutory frame?
      Practically not much.

      Accordingly under Covid–19 circumstances companies have applied staff redundancy condition more than ever, which may not have been necessary if employment structures would be more flexible. Part of employees today let in idleness have started to look for new job even before the actual dismissal, because perception of stability and predictability is the driving force. This actually showing that although employment of a periodical character would not provide long term income and social security, with this approach the employees of Latvia would have been more used and resistant to fast changing circumstances and periods of actual idleness (meaning also – had some savings).

      It appears that development of economy and business approaches runs on a speed of light, whereas statutory regulation does not manage to follow in those footsteps. The question is though do we need today law and regulation for each detail, if in practice changes come into our lives so fast. Maybe a better solution would be regulation on general principles and practically providing field of different approaches and solutions which would fit more each business segment and keep economy running also in such extraordinary circumstances as Covid-19.

      A close cooperation among numerous employers

      The Gig economy concept provides for presence of different types of cooperation among employers and employees, including crowdsourcing of personnel, sharing of working spaces, liaising business operations and sharing liability in respect to work performed.

      Under present requirements of employment and tax laws of Latvia having shared workforce is rather complicated. The statutory restrictions keep accountability of employers at a very high level thus at the end of the day the approach of traditional employment – “one employer and one employee” – on Latvian market appears to be the easiest. Likewise the strict statutory rules have developed certain culture also on the employee side – “I have one master” seems the most correct and secure way and any other solutions are simply out of discussion.

      As an example, it took years for the Latvian market to admit that employees can be also leased out. Due to long term difficulties with practical applicability of this concept and contractual split of liabilities between lessor and lessee in respect to the employee (being those days at full discretion of the contractual parties), not always being favourable for the employee, in year 2011 changes to the Labour Law were introduced. The amendments established precise definition on what a lease of employees is, the scope of liability and split of duties among the parties resulting therefrom. However not without creating new burdens.

      The statutory protection level of employees on the Latvian market has always been very high and same became applicable in case of lease of workforce. No doubt employees have to be protected; however employee lease is a slightly different way of employment and therefore the regulation in place is still not always compatible with differentiation of employment schemes possible. Last but not least, another aspect complicating applicability of lease of employees is that lease of workforce is set as licensable operation. The procedure to obtain license is complicate enough and involves preparation of paper loads, moreover under statutory requirements a license must be obtained even if the employees are leased between related companies. Thus benefits of this employment structure are certainly disputable.

      Crowdsourcing of employees is the next step; however theoretically possible already today. Individuals could become self employed specialists and enter into contracts with different companies, thus avoiding of the risk under Law on Personal Income Tax (described in this article earlier) to be recognized as employee of any of these companies provided of course that the individual assumes certain financial risks and does job with his/her own tools in majority. It can be considered also as mitigation of risks for both parties – the individual has certain financial and social security stability, as losing one customer would not heavily impact the individual’s income and life quality; whereas on the company’s side – expenses can be planned according to business plans and necessity. But not all individuals are today ready to work without strong supervision and assume full liability.

      Covid-19 showed that flexibility should be introduced. Moreover a plan on mitigation of risks and business sustainability are not just nice words, it is a must have plan to be updated constantly for the companies to be ready for extraordinary situations. Likewise stability the employees consider they have due to open ended “one master” employment are very volatile, the risks are always out there and nothing should be deemed as for granted.

      Nevertheless, pure employment issues are not the only challenges in the Gig economy approach.

      Remote and digital employment – the skills for the future

      Gig economy idea claims for flexibility and free choice of place to be, which for a traditional society like Latvia is a true challenge. Historically established traditions of frame and control in each aspect are still alive and part of the culture, whereas new generation which was born in years of independence already with their different view is considered as rebels.

      Labor Law of Latvia states ten mandatory terms and conditions to be included in each that Employment Agreements:

      • name, surname, ID number/ birth date, address of the employee; name, registration number, address of the employer;
      • starting date of the employment;
      • expected length of the employment (in case the agreement is concluded for certain period of time);
      • place of work and/ or in case employee will be required to perform work duties in different places, this must be clearly indicated;
      • the position employee is employed for indicating also code of the profession according to Classification of Professions established by the State;
      • amount of remuneration agreed and date of payment thereof;
      • contracted work time per day or per week;
      • length of the annual paid leave;
      • notice periods of the Employment Agreement;
      • indication to Collective Agreement and internal procedures and policies of the company applicable to the said employment.

      These mandatory aspects must be included in the agreement irrespective of whether they are statutorily fixed or can be changed upon agreement of the parties. Moreover, in case further changes in these terms shall be required the employer is obliged to inform the employee on that with one month prior written notice. Whereas coming into effect of the amendments to the agreement shall be absolutely subject to agreement between the parties or it triggers rights for the employer to unilaterally terminate employment (based though on staff reduction argument). Thus clear statement of where the work place is forms one of the key elements of the employment and changing it is rather inflexible.

      But it must be also taken into account that historically the concept of a fixed work place is connected to certain additional and consequential aspects. Namely, performance of work in the work place indicated in the Employment Agreement is solely subject to payment of salary and if applicable – compensation for overtime, as a general rule – not less than in amount of 100% of the hourly or daily salary rate set. Whereas work outside the work place established by the Employment Agreement may be deemed one of two business trip types and statutory rule is to provide additional protection to employees when they have to perform their work outside used place, especially if this is away from home:

      • Business trip A (komandējums) – a trip for a certain period of time based on order of the employer, to another location either inland or abroad to perform work duties or to promote qualification. This business trip is subject to compensation by the employer of daily allowance at least in the statutorily established amount, transportation and luggage expenses, expenses for accommodation, parking expenses, insurance expenses, participations fees at the events and alike;
      • Business trip B (darba brauciens) – work of the employee, if it takes place while travelling in accordance with the concluded Employment Agreement/ job description, inland or abroad, if the work involves regular/ systematic trips and change of location. This business trip is subject to compensation by the employer of slightly less expenses than in case of the business trip A – transportation expenses, expenses for accommodation, parking expenses, insurance expenses, expenses for transportation of luggage and few more.

      At the end of the day it is significant for the employer to precisely establish whether this is employment at another place as provides Employment Agreement or one of the business trips, accordingly precisely detecting which business trip type is applied as on this depends the overall amount of expenses to be compensated for the employee. And even more, certain aspects as for instance whether the employee can return to the residence place at the end of the day can decrease the amount of compensation to be paid. Accordingly applying of a fixed place of work may be financial wise more advantageous for the employer than flexibility of location for the employee.

      Another challenge of the work outside the office premises is compliance with work and health safety rules. When the work is performed in office premises of the employer it is mandatory obligation of the employer to ensure safe and healthy work conditions for its employees that including air conditions, work place suitable to spend hours in performing duties, safe and suitable tools for work and alike. Likewise the employer is in charge of running trainings for employees in this respect.

      Before extraordinary Covid–19 circumstances remote work was present in Latvia; however it was merely optional and applied in exceptional cases. Each case requiring ongoing remote work was true stress to employers, because the only way how to mitigate responsibility of the employer in respect to work safety was to conclude an additional agreement, with the employee probably stating that it has been initiative of the employee to work remotely and employer has agreed to that, thus the liability in respect to the work safety (and health) condition being transferred fully to the employee.

      Co-working spaces as a first change in culture had shaken not only the traditional approach of what a work place should be, but also the statutory frame. Due to various forms of employment becoming more and more relevant, including remote work, when the employee works at home or elsewhere outside the company, necessity for adaption of the work safety regulation to current trends became inevitable.
      As a result in October 2019 amendments to the Labour Protection Law were adopted.
      The new regulation coming into effect on July 1, 2020 finally declares what is a remote work, excluding therefrom work which is related to regular travelling. The new rules also establish obligation for the remote work performer to cooperate and exchange information with the employer in evaluation of work safety risks in the environment the employee is going to perform the work, if such circumstances can endanger or impact safety and health of the employee. The support in evaluation of the work safety must be provided by the employer irrespective of number of locations the employee would decide to perform the work at. And the employer will be responsible for the recordkeeping in respect to such work place evaluations. Nevertheless the part of law in respect to liability has not changed overall – the employer remains responsible for work and health safety at work of the persons employed/ contracted.

      It can be already today predicted that practicalities of the newly established approach will cause a lot of tricky and disputable situations. In a culture where employees are not keen to take responsibility, the new regulation will trigger employee claims to finance and ensure working conditions per individual choice and ambitions unless the employers will develop precise internal policies and procedures on conditions and equipment company deems sufficient and appropriate for the particular position in which the employee is employed.

      Hence the statutory regulation obviously needs more of development and tests in deployment before Gig economy approach can be deemed as fitting the culture and expectations of the society and aligning the statutory rules.

      For performance of the work duties especially information and communications technologies (ICT) are required

      And finally – under the Gig economy performance of work remotely would not be possible without proper gadgets – PCs, smartphones, tablets etc.

      When it comes to extraordinary circumstances like Covid-19 our very well digitalized society appears to be well skilled mainly in using digital social media, but as far as it concerns doing work, not yet so sophisticated. Lockdown discovered that a lot of inhabitants of Latvia have very poor ICT with limited functionality, low security level and even outdated. When using such equipment for performance of work duties the productivity is under question, cooperation of employees limps, reaching results takes longer time. But even more – data (especially confidential information) of the employer is endangered when poor ICT solutions are used.

      If we take a look at digitalization of Latvia, although not much internationally advertised, it is at a high level.
      Already today Latvian society has access to:

      • Latvia has one of the fastest internet connections in the world;
      • registration of corporate changes with the Company Register by submitting electronically signed documents (www.ur.gov.lv; www.latvija.lv);
      • complying with tax reporting requirements via electronic tool of the State Revenue Service, providing all communication with the tax authority also electronically (eds.vid.gov.lv);
      • signing majority of documents (public and private) electronically with secure digital signature and a time stamp (granted based on and connected with ID and passport of an individual) issued by LVRTC – one of the leading electronic communication service providers in Latvia (www.eparaksts.lv). This signature is recognized and can be combined with similar electronic signatures of other countries, e.g. Lithuania and Estonia. Even more – since some time mobile version of the secure electronic signature (and time stamp) is available, which means that any documents can be signed also in a smart phone;
      • notaries of Latvia perform their duties and execute documents electronically with secure digital signature and a time stamp;
      • State and majority of municipal authorities are welcoming electronic communication;

      and many more electronic solutions.

      Irrespective of that the mindset of “paper prevails over other solutions” is still there in society. Attack of Covid-19 literally pushed the society towards digitalization in mindset too and actually understanding that tools and solutions required for remote business handing and employment are already there, now we only need to understand what would be the procedures to correctly implement those in real time and every day, because:

      • the old processes employees and employers are used to, do not work anymore;
      • both parties – employees and employers lack clarity on how to manage work with no stress or at least at proportionate stress level;
      • the remote work requires new skills not only for employees but also for management. How about control over employee work, what are the ways to manage it if all the team is not in one room;
      • no matter how digitally developed is the country each individual is though on different level of development in this respect, and this becomes true challenge when it comes to day-to-day remote work and cooperation;
      • and last but not least – the employers have invested in tools and equipment within on prems concept, whereas remote work needs different type of investment, more developed tools and IT security guarantees.

      This means that each company needs an actual transformation plan irrespective of the business it operates in. The digitalization is inevitable, it is a rational optimization of resources used, development of new skills and taking each employee on a whole new level of professional performance – individually and team wise. For companies digitalization increases competitiveness and readiness to unexpected circumstances and sustainability of business operation.

      So summarizing all the aspects analyzed during this article, Covid-19 has made people think not only, what is actual value of the employment and how one can concurrently protect employees and its business, but also how much of processes we can transform in an e-approach immediately and where we still need know-how and investment.
      Transforming into a Gig economy requires much more than overnight meditation with one thought – this shall pass. It is a new way of living.

      On March 31, 2020 the details of emergency measures where shared in a press conference and the scheme was published simultaneously. This memo sets out the main lines of the NOW scheme.

      Loss of turnover

      Under the NOW scheme, employers can apply for an allowance for labour costs if they expect a loss of turnover of at least 20%. The loss of turnover of at least 20% must occur over a three-month period starting on the first day of the months March, April or May 2020. It must always relate to a consecutive period of three months.

      The turnover is compared with 25% of the turnover from January to December 2019.

      The loss of turnover is determined at group level. If a group as a whole has a loss of turnover of less than 20%, no compensation will be paid to any individual parts of that group that are still inactive. Net turnover is taken as the net turnover, i.e. the income from the supply of goods and services from the business of the legal entity less discounts and the like and tax levied on the turnover.

      Wages and salaries

      The employer must pay the wages to the employees in full, but can apply to the UWV (social security insurer for employees) for an allowance for labour costs. On the other hand, the employee must also be fully available to perform work.

      The NOW scheme also covers employees with employees with a flexible contract insofar as they continue to be employed and receive wages from the employer during the subsidy period. The wage bill of all employees with a social security wage (virtually all) are eligible for the subsidy. These are, for example, employees with a so-called fictitious employment contract for employee insurance, but not voluntarily insured persons.

      Wages up to € 9,538 gross per month are considered, the amount surpassing the same is not considered for the subsidy. Additional charges and costs such as employer contributions and employee contributions to pension and the accrual of holiday allowance are also compensated. A lump-sum surcharge for employer charges of 30% applies.

      Advance payment

       The advance payment provided under the NOW is, in principle, based on the wage bill for the January 2020 return period. If there are no wage data for January 2020, the UWV will assume November 2019. If there are no data for this period either, no subsidy can be granted.

      If the wage bill for the months March-April-May is lower, the amount of the subsidy will be reduced by 90% of the amount by which the wage bill fell. The settlement is an incentive to keep employees employed as much as possible for the hours they worked before the severe drop in turnover.

      Calculation

      The amount of the allowance for wage costs depends on the drop in turnover and amounts to a maximum of 90% of the wage bill. For example: If 100% of the turnover is lost, the allowance amounts to 90% of the wage and salary bill of the employer and if 50% of the turnover is lost, the allowance amounts to 45% of the wage and salary bill of the employer.

      Extension of the arrangement

      It was previously announced that the period of the allowance, which is 3 months, may be extended once for a further period of 3 months. The Cabinet now announces that this extension has not yet been decided; it will be decided before 1 June 2020, so that any second tranche will be in line with the first application period ending on 31 May 2020. In case of extension, further conditions may be added to the scheme.

      Prohibition of dismissal

      When applying on the grounds of the NOW, the employer undertakes in advance not to apply for dismissal on the grounds of business economics for his employees during the period for which the allowance is received. The employer is therefore expected not to apply to the UWV for permission to terminate an employment contract on the grounds of business economics in the period from 18 March to 31 May 2020 inclusive. The prohibition on dismissal does not apply to dismissal applications submitted to the UWV in the period from 1 March to 17 March 2020.

      If a request for dismissal is nevertheless made and this request is not withdrawn (or not withdrawn on time), a correction will be made when the subsidy is determined. When the subsidy is determined, the wages of the employees for whom dismissal has been requested will be determined. This wage is then increased by 50%. This wage plus the 50% increase is deducted from the total wage sum on which the final amount of the subsidy is based.

      Submitting the request

      The UWV will be charged with processing the application. The applications are expected to be submitted on 6 April next. The first advance payments will be made within 2 to 4 weeks. This advance payment will in any case amount to 80% of the grant.

      Questo articolo si propone di illustrare le nuove norme in materia di parità di genere introdotte dal RDL 6/2019 applicabili a tutte le tipologie di imprese (indipendentemente dal numero di dipendenti), ed in particolare alle imprese che occupino almeno 50 dipendenti.

      La principale novità in questo senso consiste in un obbligo a carico delle aziende con almeno 50 dipendenti di attuare un Piano che promuova la parità di trattamento, in conformità alle disposizioni degli articoli 45 e seguenti della LOIEMH.

      Per quanto riguarda i contenuti e le modalità di attuazione del Piano di Parità nelle aziende, segnaliamo le seguenti novità:

      • I temi ed i contenuti minimi che devono essere inclusi nel singolo Piano di Parità sono indicati in modo esaustivo.
      • E’ introdotta un’analisi della sotto-rappresentazione femminile in azienda quale tema da includere nel Piano.
      • La valutazione che le imprese devono compiere in fase di elaborazione del Piano di Parità deve essere oggetto di negoziazione con il rappresentante legale dei lavoratori.
      • È istituito un Registro dei Piano di Parità delle imprese, nel quale vanno iscritti tutti i Piani di Parità adottato dalle imprese, indipendentemente dal numero di lavoratori occupati.

      L’RDL 6/2019 introduce peraltro una nuova formulazione dell’articolo 28 dello Statuto dei Lavoratori, la quale sancisce l’obbligo per le imprese di conformarsi al principio della parità retributiva tra uomini e donne, stabilendo una serie di misure e obblighi a carico delle imprese, al fine di garantire l’effettivo rispetto della parità retributiva.

      In particolare, le nuove misure inserite nell’articolo 28 dello Statuto sono le seguenti:

      • Il testo definisce la nozione di “lavoro di pari valore“, al fine di promuovere un criterio unico ed eliminare ogni dubbio al riguardo.
      • Le imprese sono tenute a mantenere un Registro delle Retribuzioni, riportando i valori medi delle retribuzioni, delle componenti retributive supplementari e delle percezioni extra-salariali del proprio personale, differenziando i dati per genere e distribuendoli per gruppi professionali, categorie professionali o posizioni di lavoro di pari valore.
      • Il Registro delle Retribuzioni dovrà essere reso accessibile al rappresentante legale dei lavoratori.
      • Nelle imprese che occupano almeno 50 lavoratori con una retribuzione media relativa ai lavoratori di un genere superiore di almeno il 25% rispetto a quella dell’altro, è necessario inserire nel Registro delle Retribuzioni una motivazione di tale disparità, certificando che essa è dovuta a ragioni diverse dal genere dei lavoratori.

      L’inosservanza degli obblighi in materia di parità e, in particolare, di quelli attinenti al Piano di Parità ed alla parità retributiva tra uomini e donne, può comportare l’applicazione di pesanti sanzioni da parte dell’Ispettorato del Lavoro e della “Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social”.

      On 28 May 2019 the Dutch Parliament adopted new employment legislation: The Balanced Labour Market Act (‘Wet Arbeidsmarkt in Balans’), hereinafter the WAB. The most important changes are discussed below.

      New cumulation ground for dismissal

      The legislation introduces a new ground for dismissal. This makes it a bit easier for employers to dismiss employees. Dismissal will also be possible if there is a sum of circumstances, the so-called cumulation ground. Now the employer must fully comply with 1 of the 8 grounds for dismissal. This new ground gives the court the opportunity to combine circumstances. The employee can receive an extra half transitional allowance (on top of the current statutory transitional allowance) if the cumulation ground is used for the dismissal.

      Severance: Transitional allowance

      The new act arranges that employees will have the right to a transitional allowance immediately from the first start of the employment contract, instead of only after two years.

      The accrual of transitional allowance is reduced in case of long-term employment. The accrual for everyone, regardless of the age of the employee, is one third of a monthly salary.

      There will be a scheme for small employers to compensate the transitional allowance if they have to end their business due to retirement or illness.

      Extending the scope of the chain of employment agreements

      The current period after which successive fixed-term employment contracts legally change into an employment contract for an indefinite period is two years. The WAB broadens the succession of temporary contracts. Under the WAB it will still be possible to enter into a maximum of three temporary contracts. The maximum period of fixed-term contracts will be extended to three years. This chain of successive fixed-term employment contracts can be broken by an interruption period of six months.

      It is possible to shorten the interruption period between a chain of fixed-term contracts in a Collective Bargaining Agreement from six to three months if there is recurring temporary work that can be done for a maximum of nine months a year.

      An exception to the chain provision will be made for temporary workers in primary education who replace employees who became ill.

      Call agreement

      A new definition is introduced in Article 7: 628a paragraph 9 of the Dutch Civil Code: the ‘call agreement’. In call agreements the number of working hours per period and the salary are not established upfront but can vary depending on for example the amount of work available. Under the WAB an employee must be called by the employer at least four days in advance. If the employer does not follow this regulation, the employee is not obligated to come in for work. Call workers retain the right to wages for the period for which they were called if the work is cancelled less than four days in advance. The employer is obliged to offer the call worker an employment contract after a year for the average number of hours that he has worked in the previous twelve months. In Collective Bargaining Agreements alternative arrangements can be made under certain conditions.

      Payrolling

      Payroll employees will receive the same legal position and primary and secondary employment conditions as employees who are employed by the employer.

      Payroll employees are also entitled to an ‘adequate’ pension scheme.

      Unemployment benefit premium differentiation

      In order to make employment contracts for an indefinite period of time more attractive for employers, the WAB arranges for an unemployment benefit premium differentiation between permanent and temporary contracts. A lower premium will apply for employment contracts for an indefinite period of time and a higher premium for fixed-term employment contracts.

      Commencing date

      The intended commencing date of the WAB is 1 January 2020. The right to an adequate pension scheme for payrolling starts on 1 January 2021.

      The author of this post is Regine de Wit.

      10 practical aspects to consider for an adequate timing

      Meanwhile similar legal standards apply in most industrialized countries if an employment relationship shall be terminated; however, in every jurisdiction some specifics still need to be considered. The following ten aspects may be a first general guideline for the termination of an employment contract in Germany, in particular regarding its timing.

      1. In some cases notice needs to be given within a two-week period

      In case of gross misconduct an employer may be entitled to terminate an employment relationship forthwith. However, if notice of termination is not served to the employee within two weeks after acknowledgement of the respective facts, this right is forfeited.

      1. Notice has to be given in writing

      The notice has to be signed by the legal representative of the employer and delivered to the employee. Neither a transmission by facsimile nor an email with a scanned copy is sufficient. If the representative is not on site, timing may become an essential aspect of the termination process.

      1. Ordinary dismissal may be prohibited by a collective bargaining agreement

      Collective bargaining agreements often provide a ban on ordinary dismissal under certain circumstances (e.g. based on the age of the employee). A careful assessment of all applicable collective bargaining agreements before a termination is therefore indispensable.

      1. Insufficient information of the works councils may lead to an invalid termination

      The establishment of a works council is not mandatory in Germany. However, if it is established, it needs to be notified and heard before every termination of an employment contract. The notification must contain a sufficient description of the grounds for the termination, otherwise the termination may be deemed invalid. Having been notified, the works council has one week (in some cases: three days) to object. Any termination before such term without consent of the works council would be deemed invalid as well. Timing may therefore become again an essential aspect of the termination process.

      1. General dismissal protection is related to seniority and size of the establishment

      General dismissal protection is basically applicable in establishments with more than 10 employees. Exceptions may apply in favour of those employees whose employment relationships commenced already before 1st January 2004. In addition, the respective employee needs to have at least a seniority of six month. If these criteria are met, the termination has to be justified by operational reasons, misconduct or personal incapacity as set out in the Dismissal Protection Act.

      1. Some terminations may need prior permission

      Irrespective of the application of the afore mentioned Dismissal Protection Act some kind of terminations (e.g. employees on parental leave) may need a special permission of the works council, the Labour Court or the respective public authority as applicable. These procedures may last from some days up to two years.

      1. There is no general claim for severance payment in case of an unfair dismissal

      Aside from those agreed in termination agreements there is no general claim for severance payment in case of an unfair dismissal. In general, the statutory remedy will only be reinstatement and back pay. Only under certain circumstances each party may apply for the termination of the employment relationship and a severance payment in front of the Labour Court. However, in most of the cases parties end up in a voluntary termination agreement.

      1. Non-competes may lead to extensive payments and cannot be withdrawn forthwith unilaterally without cause

      A binding covenant to non-compete leads to a compensation payment of at least 50 % of the former salary for every month of its duration. Even in case of a justified termination it may only be terminated with a notice period of one year. However, both parties may agree upon its immediate suspension in a termination agreement.

      1. Any termination agreement has to be in written form as well

      Also a termination agreement needs to fulfil the same formal requirements as set out already above under point 2. Again, if the representative is not on site, timing may become an essential aspect of the bargaining process.

      1. The forfeiture clause of a termination agreement may not cover all claims 

      Termination agreements often contain general forfeiture clauses at their end, covering also those potential claims which have not been explicitly mentioned or identified by the parties. However, some claims (e.g. pension claims) may not be covered by such a (general) forfeiture clause.

      Please note that these ten aspects contain general information only. Further details as well as possible exceptions therefore need to be checked on a case-by-case basis by a professional advisor.

       

      Tha author of this post is Alexander Lentz

      L’imprenditore che intenda concentrarsi esclusivamente sul proprio core business ha la possibilità di ricorrere ad altri imprenditori, a cui affidare la realizzazione di tutte quelle opere e di quei servizi comunque necessari per la gestione dell’impresa.

      Il termine tecnico che si utilizza per definire un tale modus operandi è quello di “esternalizzazione” di parte dell’attività imprenditoriale e, solitamente, l’accordo che regola tale tipologia di collaborazione è un contratto di appalto, vale a dire il contratto con il quale una parte si impegna a compiere un’opera o un servizio a favore di un’altra e verso un corrispettivo in denaro.

      Esempio di contratto di appalto d’opera potrebbe essere il contratto con il quale un’impresa edile si obbliga a costruire un palazzo per una società immobiliare; esempio di appalto di servizi potrebbe essere il contratto che si stipula con un’impresa di pulizie per la pulizia del proprio stabile.

      L’appalto ha per oggetto una prestazione di “fare” nell’ambito della quale un soggetto, detto appaltatore, si impegna a svolgere un’attività determinata, fornendo ed organizzando i mezzi necessari e gestendo la realizzazione a proprio rischio; è poi necessario che l’attività sia organizzata in forma di impresa e che quindi l’appaltatore sia, esso stesso, un imprenditore.

      In Italia lo strumento dell’appalto ha sempre avuto grande diffusione ed utilizzo e da sempre rappresenta lo strumento privilegiato per esternalizzare attività poco remunerative nell’ambito di realtà imprenditoriali complesse: obiettivo di chi ricorre all’appalto è quello di realizzare efficienza in termini di risorse, sia economiche (riduzione dei costi) che materiali (riduzione di personale e delle responsabilità connesse alla sua gestione).

      Quanto sopra vale anche per gli imprenditori esteri che gestiscono o decidono di avviare un’attività in Italia: l’appalto rappresenta un ottimo strumento per delegare ad altri soggetti, in loco e con una specifica expertise in materia, la gestione di problematiche complesse quali: l’ottenimento di autorizzazioni pubbliche, l’approvvigionamento di particolari materie prime, il reclutamento sul territorio di risorse umane qualificate.

      L’esternalizzazione della attività non è un fenomeno omogeneo e le esigenze che spesso si presentano in concreto sono suscettibili di prestarsi anche a differenti soluzioni, a seconda dell’oggetto della prestazione, della tipologia e delle caratteristiche del committente o della particolare natura degli interessi coinvolti.

      Proprio in virtù delle suddette particolarità molto spesso, in luogo del contratto di appalto, l’imprenditore fa ricorso al contratto di subfornitura.

      Con il contratto di subfornitura un imprenditore si impegna a effettuare, per conto di una impresa committente, lavorazioni su prodotti semilavorati o su materie prime forniti dalla committente medesima, o si impegna a fornire all’impresa prodotti o servizi destinati ad essere incorporati o comunque ad essere utilizzati nell’ambito dell’attività economica del committente o nella produzione di un bene complesso, in conformità a progetti esecutivi, conoscenze tecniche e tecnologiche, modelli o prototipi forniti dall’impresa committente.

      Sintetizzando e forse banalizzando fiorenti dibattiti dottrinali e giurisprudenziali, potremmo dire che molto spesso la differenza tra un appalto di servizi e la “subfornitura” consiste nel fatto che in caso di subfornitura le attività oggetto del contratto vengono svolte su materiali del committente e/o consistono nella realizzazione di beni o servizi funzionali al processo produttivo del committente; in ogni caso, la subfornitura comporta la “dipendenza tecnologica” (ed anche economica) del subfornitore nei confronti del committente.

      Proprio il decentramento e la dissociazione che l’esternalizzazione di processi e attività realizza tra il “gestore” dell’attività esternalizzata ed il fruitore finale della stessa, suscita da sempre grande attenzione da parte del legislatore italiano.

      Attenzione finalizzata a tutelare soprattutto i dipendenti coinvolti nell’attività esternalizzata in caso di eventi nefasti idonei a privarli di garanzie legali di cui, invece, possono continuare a godere i dipendenti dell’appaltante committente (pensiamo ad esempio alla sofferenza finanziaria dell’appaltatore/subfornitore, o addirittura al suo coinvolgimento in procedure concorsuali, da cui derivi il mancato pagamento di retribuzioni e contributi).

      Per tali ragioni, ormai a far data dal 2003, il legislatore italiano ha introdotto un oneroso regime di solidarietà tra committente e appaltatore, nonché con ciascuno degli eventuali subappaltatori che, entro il limite di due anni dalla cessazione dell’appalto, sono obbligati in solido a corrispondere ai lavoratori i trattamenti retributivi, comprese le quote di trattamento di fine rapporto, nonché i contributi previdenziali e i premi assicurativi dovuti in relazione al periodo di esecuzione del contratto di appalto.

      Sino al mese di dicembre del 2017 la giurisprudenza di merito era consolidata nel ritenere che il regime della responsabilità solidale fosse applicabile esclusivamente all’appalto di servizi e non alla subfornitura. Circostanza questa che rendeva il ricorso alla subfornitura potenzialmente meno oneroso per il committente.

      Con sentenza n. 254 del 6 dicembre scorso, tuttavia, la prospettiva è stata completamente ribaltata dalla Corte Costituzionale che chiamata a pronunciarsi in materia ha stabilito l’applicazione estensiva del principio della responsabilità solidale anche tra committente e subfornitore.

      La sentenza parte dall’analisi della nota questione giurisprudenziale circa la configurazione giuridica del contratto di subfornitura e, in particolare, circa l’autonomia o meno del contratto di fornitura rispetto al contratto di appalto.

      Senza entrare nel merito del dibattito giurisprudenziale esistente, la Corte Costituzionale sostiene che, al di là dell’orientamento seguito quanto all’assimilazione o meno della subfornitura al contratto di appalto, è possibile operare l’estensione della responsabilità del committente/appaltatore ai crediti di lavoro dei dipendenti del subfornitore.

      Ciò in quanto l’introduzione della norma sulla responsabilità solidale in ipotesi di appalto, non può giustificare l’esclusione della medesima garanzia nei confronti dei dipendenti del subfornitore, atteso che la tutela del soggetto che assicura un’attività lavorativa indiretta non può non estendersi a tutti i livelli di decentramento.

      Sulla base di tali considerazioni, dunque, il principio della responsabilità solidale va correttamente interpretato nel senso che il committente/appaltatore è obbligato in solido (anche) con il subfornitore, relativamente ai crediti lavorativi, contributivi e assicurativi dei dipendenti di questi, al pari quindi di quanto lo è verso i dipendenti del subappaltatore.

      In sostanza il committente risponde direttamente, salvo successiva rivalsa, per le rivendicazioni economiche avanzate dai dipendenti dell’appaltatore, del subappaltatore e del subfornitore e di tutti i lavoratori che dovessero essere stati utilizzati nell’attività esternalizzata in relazione a: i) crediti retributivi maturati durante il periodo di correlazione tra committente ed impresa che ha eseguito i lavori, ivi compresi, “pro – quota”, quelli relativi al trattamento di fine rapporto; e ii) contributi previdenziali e premi assicurativi dovuti per il periodo di esecuzione della prestazione.

      Il lavoratore può chiedere direttamente al committente il pagamento di quanto maturato nei confronti del proprio datore. Il committente, chiamato in giudizio, non può mai chiedere l’escussione del coobbligato in solido: deve pagare salva l’azione di regresso.

      Il committente quindi, nonostante l’esigenza iniziale fosse quella di fare efficienza e ridurre costi, può trovarsi esposto ad un rischio economico molto maggiore rispetto al costo risparmiato, soprattutto se le rivendicazioni economiche riguardano situazioni non controllabili a priori: facciamo riferimento ad esempio, all’eventuale personale utilizzato “in maniera irregolare” dall’appaltatore/subfornitore, oppure alle rivendicazioni connesse allo svolgimento di mansioni superiori, od anche alla richiesta di lavoro straordinario al di fuori dei parametri di legge.

      Esistono naturalmente sistemi e meccanismi idonei a contenere il rischio o, comunque, idonei a garantire al committente maggiore controllo sul corretto funzionamento della filiera esternalizzata.

      Tra questi, ad esempio, alla possibilità di prevedere contrattualmente strumenti di tutela economica quali fideiussioni e manleve.

      Ma esiste anche la possibilità di implementare, sempre nel contratto, un adeguato sistema di controllo sulla corretta gestione del personale nonché sull’erogazione di retribuzioni, contributi e premi assicurativi.

      Alla luce di quanto sopra, concludiamo individuando nella figura del consulente esperto in materia di diritto del lavoro il miglior supporto per l’imprenditore che intenda avventurarsi in maniera consapevole e sicura in un processo di esternalizzazione.

      L’autore di questo articolo è Domenica Cotroneo.

      Il distacco transnazionale di lavoratori è quel meccanismo attraverso cui le imprese di uno Stato membro prestano servizi in un altro Stato membro inviando direttamente i propri dipendenti nel territorio di quest’ultimo.

      Nel corso degli ultimi 20 anni tale fenomeno è cresciuto in maniera rilevante a livello europeo, soprattutto a seguito dell’ingresso nell’Unione dei Paesi dell’est, che avevano – e in parte continuano ad avere – un costo del lavoro sensibilmente più basso di quello degli altri Stati membri.

      Il fenomeno è stato quindi oggetto di diversi interventi del legislatore europeo e di quelli nazionali, nonché di alcune rilevanti decisioni della Corte di Giustizia. Esso si pone infatti in relazione con diversi diritti fondamentali riconosciuti dall’Unione e richiede un equilibrato bilanciamento degli interessi in gioco.

      Occorre garantire le libertà di circolazione di lavoratori,  capitali e merci e, in particolare, la libera prestazione dei servizi (art. 56 TFUE), salvaguardando al contempo la leale concorrenza tra le imprese e la tutela dei lavoratori. Il legislatore comunitario intervenne sul tema con la Direttiva 96/71/CE (attuata in Italia col D. Lgs. 72/2000), poi integrata dalla Direttiva 2014/67/UE (attuata in Italia col D. Lgs. 136/2016).

      Il legislatore europeo e quello nazionale perseguono con le citate disposizioni due principali obiettivi:

      – contrastare i distacchi fittizi attraverso società di comodo, le cosiddette letterbox company, garantendo equilibrio concorrenziale a livello europeo;

      – garantire uniformità di trattamento e di tutela ai lavoratori coinvolti, impedendo fenomeni di ‘dumping sociale’.

      Per raggiungere questi obiettivi viene rafforzato il sistema di cooperazione amministrativa tra le diverse autorità ispettive nazionali,  vengono individuati criteri predefiniti per la valutazione dell’autenticità del distacco e vengono stabilite condizioni minime da garantire ai lavoratori.

      Per valutare l’autenticità del distacco, l’art. 4 della direttiva 2014/67/UE (recepito nell’art. 3 della legge italiana) indica alcune caratteristiche da prendere in considerazione con riferimento alle imprese coinvolte e ai lavoratori distaccati.

      Per le imprese sono considerati rilevanti i seguenti elementi:

      1. a) il luogo in cui l’impresa ha la propria sede legale e amministrativa, utilizza uffici, paga imposte e contributi previdenziali ed è iscritta alla camera di commercio;
      2. b) il luogo in cui i lavoratori sono assunti e quello da cui sono distaccati;
      3. c) la legge applicabile ai contratti stipulati dall’impresa con i suoi lavoratori e con i suoi clienti;
      4. d) il luogo in cui l’impresa esercita la propria attività economica principale e in cui è occupato il suo personale amministrativo;
      5. e) il numero dei contratti eseguiti o l’ammontare del fatturato realizzato dall’impresa nello Stato membro di stabilimento, tenendo conto della specificità delle piccole e medie imprese e di quelle di nuova costituzione.

      Per i lavoratori vengono prese in considerazione queste circostanze:

      1. a) lo svolgimento dell’attività lavorativa per un periodo di tempo limitato in un altro Stato membro;
      2. b) la data di inizio del distacco;
      3. c) l’esercizio abituale dell’attività lavorativa nello Stato di provenienza;
      4. d) il ritorno a prestare attività lavorativa nello Stato cui è stato distaccato;
      5. e) la natura e le modalità di svolgimento dell’attività;
      6. f) il rimborso da parte del datore di lavoro distaccante delle spese di viaggio, vitto o alloggio  e le modalità di pagamento;
      7. g) eventuali periodi precedenti in cui la medesima attività è stata svolta dallo stesso o da un altro lavoratore distaccato.

      Tutte queste circostanze devono essere considerate nel loro complesso, nessuna è di per sé decisiva e spetta alle autorità nazionali la valutazione finale dell’autenticità o meno del distacco.

      L’eventuale accertamento di un distacco fittizio determina rilevanti sanzioni amministrative a carico sia dell’impresa distaccante che di quella utilizzatrice, nonché la loro corresponsabilità per i crediti dei lavoratori.

      Il legislatore italiano ha inoltre rafforzato tale previsione: in simmetria con quanto previsto per i casi di intermediazione illecita di mano d’opera, ha infatti stabilito che, se il distacco non risulta autentico, “il lavoratore è considerato a tutti gli effetti alle dipendenze del soggetto che ne ha utilizzato la prestazione” (art. 3 legge italiana).

      Ai fini della tutela dei lavoratori e dell’equilibrio concorrenziale, l’art. 3 della direttiva 96/71/CE (art. 4 della legge italiana) stabilisce che, qualunque sia la legislazione applicabile al rapporto di lavoro, gli Stati membri devono far sì che ai lavoratori distaccati sul loro territorio siano garantite, per il periodo del distacco, condizioni di lavoro analoghe a quelle dei lavoratori nazionali. In particolare, i lavoratori distaccati devono godere di un trattamento equivalente in relazione a:

      – periodi massimi di lavoro e minimi di riposo;

      – durata minima delle ferie annuali retribuite;

      – tariffe minime salariali;

      – sicurezza e salute sul lavoro;

      – tutela per lavoratrici madri, bambini e giovani;

      – parità di trattamento uomo/donna e principi di non discriminazione.

      Dal punto di vista pratico, l’aspetto di più complessa valutazione riguarda le tariffe minime salariali. Nei diversi paesi dell’Unione esse sono infatti definite in maniera diversa, da fonti diverse (legge/fonti amministrative/contratti collettivi) e sono composte da molte voci, non sempre sovrapponibili.

      D’altro canto, gli aspetti economici sono determinanti per imprese e lavoratori per valutare l’opportunità e la convenienza del distacco.

      Proprio per queste ragioni, la Corte di Giustizia ha chiarito che il confronto tra le diverse tariffe nazionali deve essere condotto confrontando l’importo complessivo e non le singole voci salariali. La Corte ha inoltre precisato che il confronto deve essere limitato alle voci retributive in senso stretto, cioè in diretta relazione con la prestazione, escludendo per esempio i premi supplementari. Infine la giurisprudenza comunitaria ha chiarito che le voci retributive da prendere in considerazione devono essere accessibili e chiare per il datore di lavoro distaccante.

      Da ultimo le disposizioni europee impongono agli Stati membri di consentire ai lavoratori distaccati sul loro territorio l’accesso agli strumenti di tutela, anche giudiziaria, predisposti per i lavoratori nazionali.

      A questo fine, in Italia si è esplicitamente prevista la facoltà, per i lavoratori distaccati, di agire sia in sede amministrativa che giudiziale (art. 5 legge italiana).

      In Spagna il licenziamento viene classificato individuale o collettivo, a seconda del numero di lavoratori assoggettati a tale misura.

      L’articolo 51 dello Statuto dei Lavoratori considera “licenziamento collettivo” l’estinzione del rapporto di lavoro causata da motivazioni economiche, tecniche, organizzative o di produzione quando, nel periodo di novanta giorni, coinvolga: (i) almeno dieci lavoratori di un’impresa con meno di 100 dipendenti; (ii) il dieci per cento dei lavoratori in una impresa che abbia tra cento e trecento dipendenti; (iii) trenta lavoratori nelle imprese con più di trecento dipendenti.

      Il licenziamento potrà essere impugnato in sede giudiziale, entro 20 giorni lavorativi e potrà essere dichiarato legittimo (procedente), illegittimo (improcedente) o nullo.

      Il licenziamento si considera legittimo quando è confermato l’inadempimento da parte del lavoratore contestato dall’imprenditore nella comunicazione del licenziamento e sono stati soddisfatti i requisiti formali, quali (i) la comunicazione per iscritto al lavoratore; (ii) una sufficiente descrizione dei fatti che hanno determinato il licenziamento e (iii) l’indicazione della data a partire della quale il licenziamento sarà efficace.

      Sarà dichiarato illegittimo il licenziamento privo dei requisiti citati nel paragrafo precedente.

      Il licenziamento è nullo nei seguenti casi: (i) violazione dei diritti fondamentali o libertà pubblica; (ii) il lavoratore è una vittima di violenza di genere; (iii) salvo che si dimostri la giusta causa, nei casi di: lavoratrici incinte, con permesso di maternità, paternità o allattamento, o con riduzione della giornata lavorativa per curare un minore di dodici anni o una persona con una incapacità fisica, psichica o sensoriale.

      Nel caso in cui il licenziamento sia dichiarato illegittimo, l’imprenditore entro cinque giorni dovrà scegliere se reintegrare il lavoratore nel posto di lavoro (e pagargli le mensilità trascorse tra il licenziamento e la notificazione della sentenza, i cosiddetti salarios de tramitación) oppure pagargli l’indennità, il cui importo dipende dalla durata del rapporto, come si analizzerà di seguito. Nel caso in cui il lavoratore licenziato sia un rappresentante sindacale, la scelta tra le due opzioni spetterà al lavoratore e non all’imprenditore.

      Se il licenziamento è dichiarato nullo, l’imprenditore avrà l’obbligo di reintegrare il lavoratore nel posto di lavoro e potrà essere condannato al risarcimento dei danni assieme al pagamento delle mensilità trascorse tra il licenziamento e la notifica della sentenza.

      Come accennato in precedenza, l’indennità dovuta al lavoratore (alternativa al reintegro per i licenziamenti illegittimi) dipende dal momento in cui è iniziato il rapporto di lavoro.

      L’indennità da pagare nel caso del licenziamento di un lavoratore assunto dopo il 12 febbraio 2012, sarà pari a 33 giorni di retribuzione per ogni anno lavorato.

      Nel caso in cui il lavoratore licenziato sia stato assunto prima del 12 febbraio 2012, l’indennità verrà calcolata come segue:

      • per il periodo trascorso tra la firma del contratto e il 12 febbraio 2012, l’indennità è pari a 45 giorni di retribuzione per ogni anno di rapporto;
      • sarà pari a 33 giorni di retribuzione per ogni anno lavorato dopo il 12 febbraio 2012.

      In ogni caso l’indennità non potrà ammontare a più di 720 giorni di retribuzione, salvo il caso in cui, dal calcolo dell’indennità del periodo precedente il 12 febbraio 2012, risultasse un numero di giorni superiore a 720, nel quale l’indennità non potrà essere superiore a quarantadue mensilità.

      Inoltre è importante ricordare che l’indennità in caso di licenziamento è esente da qualunque imposta fino a 180.000 euro. Per la cifra superiore, la tassazione sarà parificata ai redditi di lavoro, con una riduzione del 30% nel caso di rapporto di lavoro terminato da almeno due anni.

      Giovanni Bertola

      Aree di attività

      • Contratti
      • Fallimentare
      • Proprietà intellettuale
      • Lavoro
      • Contenzioso
      Contatta Giovanni
      Latvia - Legalmondo

      Latvia – Establishing a company
      • Diritto societario
      • Lettonia

      Scrivi a Giovanni





        Leggi la privacy policy di Legalmondo.
        Questo sito è protetto da reCAPTCHA e si applicano le Norme sulla privacy e i Termini di servizio di Google.

        Il licenziamento in Spagna

        8 Marzo 2018

        • Spagna
        • Lavoro

        Today during Covid–19 circumstances Gig economy approach has become more necessity rather than theoretical possibility. But still transformation of Latvian business and employment market does not run so smooth. Why so?

        At the end of year 2019 the State Labour Inspectorate of Latvia in cooperation with private partners released results of a research on new forms of employment presence and potential in Latvia (http://www.vdi.gov.lv/files/jnf_gala_zinojums.pdf). The results of this research as well of other international researches are rather controversial as do not conform to the real situation in the country.

        Although the aforementioned researches claim that employers in Latvia are supporters of old-style employment and are not willing to change the practice, in fact the laws of Latvia in effect do not provide flexibility on the approach of employment.

        Covid-19 has badly hit a lot of economies, and actually highlighted the largest challenges – employers to save their business would like to pay less, whereas employees need flexibility as they are required to work remotely and combine their private and work lives.

        In this article an analysis of how general conditions of employment applicable today correspond to frame of main five aspects of a Gig economy will be provided.

        Employment “one to one” or “one to many”

        Gig economy considers that traditional employment has no longer place in our world. The employment should be available among one employer and many employees, many employers and many employees or one employee and many employers, thus employment being in each contractual relations part time, nevertheless all employees are jointly and severally liable for the result of work.

        Labour Law of Latvia keeps traditions of employment – one employer and one employee. Likewise part time work is permitted just in statutorily listed cases like to replace an employee in long term absence, in case of increase of the workload in the company, in emergency cases, and in certain areas like culture, sports, banking, education and diplomacy. Moreover, length of a fixed-term employment may not exceed 5 years in total (including extensions). As a result of this majority of employments are open ended.

        In order to solve the burden imposed by law, employers often use potential employees as external service providers based on a Service Agreement in this manner imitating self employment. Self employment for a payor is less expensive tax wise, which led authorities to introduce limiting measures for flexibility of entrepreneurs.
        In the Law on Personal Income Tax criteria of employment per se where introduced. Namely, an agreement with an individual can be deemed as contractual relationships subject to payment of salary and accordingly payroll if at least one of the following conditions has been ascertained:

        • the individual has economic dependence upon the party to whom he/she provides services;
        • lack of assumption of financial risks in the fulfilment of work or no liability in respect to lost debtor debts;
        • integration of the contracted individual into the company to which services are provided (e.g. existence of a work or recreational areas, a duty to observe internal rules of the company);
        • availability of holidays and paid leave in accordance with schedules of the company;
        • work shall be performed under management or control of the other contracting party – the customer, and the individual is deprived of possibility to involve in the service provision his/ her personnel or sub-contractors; or
        • the individual is not owner of the assets used while rendering services to the company.

        Respectively in case the State Revenue Service of Latvia (tax authority) detects presence of the criteria listed, it shall be entitled to reclassify the contractual relations of the seemingly independent parties into employment relations as a result of which remuneration paid to the individual would be subject to full payroll as any other salary gained on basis of Employment Agreement. The tax expense threshold the companies playing with by out of box employment results in significant difference:

        • payroll in case of employment – progressive personal income tax between 20% to 23% depending on the income (at certain level the annual income of an individual may though be subject to maximum rate of the personal income tax – 31.4%); social security contributions of 35.09%; majority of these expenses being on the employer’s shoulders; whereas
        • taxes applicable in case of self-employment – progressive personal income tax between 20% to 31.4% depending on the income; social security contributions of 32.15%, basis of these compulsory contributions being a freely chosen income; in this case if the contracted individual is a registered economic operator – the taxes are all his/her liability, whereas if the individual has not registered with tax authorities independent economic activity, the taxes shall be withheld at the moment of disbursement of the remuneration and paid into the State budget by the company contracting the individual.

        In circumstances of Covid–19 the traditional employment scenarios chosen by entrepreneurs due to rather strict statutory rules have heavily impacted operation of businesses as employers had to either dismiss their employees or let them in idleness with crisis management allowance established by the State as support during Covid–19.

        The outcome showed that applying of different type of “employment” structures, like contracting specialists on the need to basis or crowdsourcing of employees among numerous employers could have facilitated challenges the employers face today in many ways – provide availability of different specialists for the project/ time period required, limit expenses in respect to the employees whom the companies were forced to let in idleness, and alike, all of this still keeping the business running.

        Employment volatility as new formula for flexibility

        As described earlier, present requirements of the Labour Law of Latvia require employment relationships to be based on clear and sustainable rules thus ensuring predictable and long term support to the employees, both in terms of employment and social security.
        The strict approach is even more secured by strict statutory conditions and notice periods under which an employee can be dismissed:

        With a notice of immediate effect:

        • while performing work the employee has acted unlawfully and therefore has lost trust of the employer;
        • while performing the work employee is in a state of intoxication (e.g. alcohol, drugs, other); or
        • the employee is unable to perform the contracted work due to a state of health, and this is confirmed by a medical opinion;

        With a 10 days notice:

        • in case employee has without justifiable reason materially violated the contracted work order;
        • while performing the work the employee has acted contrary to good morals, and such action is incompatible with the continuation of the employment;
        • the employee has grossly violated work safety rules and endangered safety and health of other persons; or
        • due to temporary incapacity of the employee for work for more than 6 and up to 12 months;

        With a one month notice:

        • if the employee is in lack of sufficient professional skills to perform the contracted work;
        • an employee previously employed in the particular position has been reinstated to work;
        • in case of staff redundancy (presuming that employer will not hire immediately new employee in same position); or
        • in case the employer is being liquidated.

        Having seen the list of statutory conditions one would definitely agree that only few circumstances are of a regular character, meaning can be actually applied, whereas the rest are seldom met. Sure there is also available an exception out of this strongly established frame – to terminate employment without any specific reason if the employee and employer can reach a mutual agreement. However that may be a challenge – employees are not obliged to participate in negotiations with employers and can simply walk away.

        So how much of volatility and flexibility can be reached in such strongly fixed statutory frame?
        Practically not much.

        Accordingly under Covid–19 circumstances companies have applied staff redundancy condition more than ever, which may not have been necessary if employment structures would be more flexible. Part of employees today let in idleness have started to look for new job even before the actual dismissal, because perception of stability and predictability is the driving force. This actually showing that although employment of a periodical character would not provide long term income and social security, with this approach the employees of Latvia would have been more used and resistant to fast changing circumstances and periods of actual idleness (meaning also – had some savings).

        It appears that development of economy and business approaches runs on a speed of light, whereas statutory regulation does not manage to follow in those footsteps. The question is though do we need today law and regulation for each detail, if in practice changes come into our lives so fast. Maybe a better solution would be regulation on general principles and practically providing field of different approaches and solutions which would fit more each business segment and keep economy running also in such extraordinary circumstances as Covid-19.

        A close cooperation among numerous employers

        The Gig economy concept provides for presence of different types of cooperation among employers and employees, including crowdsourcing of personnel, sharing of working spaces, liaising business operations and sharing liability in respect to work performed.

        Under present requirements of employment and tax laws of Latvia having shared workforce is rather complicated. The statutory restrictions keep accountability of employers at a very high level thus at the end of the day the approach of traditional employment – “one employer and one employee” – on Latvian market appears to be the easiest. Likewise the strict statutory rules have developed certain culture also on the employee side – “I have one master” seems the most correct and secure way and any other solutions are simply out of discussion.

        As an example, it took years for the Latvian market to admit that employees can be also leased out. Due to long term difficulties with practical applicability of this concept and contractual split of liabilities between lessor and lessee in respect to the employee (being those days at full discretion of the contractual parties), not always being favourable for the employee, in year 2011 changes to the Labour Law were introduced. The amendments established precise definition on what a lease of employees is, the scope of liability and split of duties among the parties resulting therefrom. However not without creating new burdens.

        The statutory protection level of employees on the Latvian market has always been very high and same became applicable in case of lease of workforce. No doubt employees have to be protected; however employee lease is a slightly different way of employment and therefore the regulation in place is still not always compatible with differentiation of employment schemes possible. Last but not least, another aspect complicating applicability of lease of employees is that lease of workforce is set as licensable operation. The procedure to obtain license is complicate enough and involves preparation of paper loads, moreover under statutory requirements a license must be obtained even if the employees are leased between related companies. Thus benefits of this employment structure are certainly disputable.

        Crowdsourcing of employees is the next step; however theoretically possible already today. Individuals could become self employed specialists and enter into contracts with different companies, thus avoiding of the risk under Law on Personal Income Tax (described in this article earlier) to be recognized as employee of any of these companies provided of course that the individual assumes certain financial risks and does job with his/her own tools in majority. It can be considered also as mitigation of risks for both parties – the individual has certain financial and social security stability, as losing one customer would not heavily impact the individual’s income and life quality; whereas on the company’s side – expenses can be planned according to business plans and necessity. But not all individuals are today ready to work without strong supervision and assume full liability.

        Covid-19 showed that flexibility should be introduced. Moreover a plan on mitigation of risks and business sustainability are not just nice words, it is a must have plan to be updated constantly for the companies to be ready for extraordinary situations. Likewise stability the employees consider they have due to open ended “one master” employment are very volatile, the risks are always out there and nothing should be deemed as for granted.

        Nevertheless, pure employment issues are not the only challenges in the Gig economy approach.

        Remote and digital employment – the skills for the future

        Gig economy idea claims for flexibility and free choice of place to be, which for a traditional society like Latvia is a true challenge. Historically established traditions of frame and control in each aspect are still alive and part of the culture, whereas new generation which was born in years of independence already with their different view is considered as rebels.

        Labor Law of Latvia states ten mandatory terms and conditions to be included in each that Employment Agreements:

        • name, surname, ID number/ birth date, address of the employee; name, registration number, address of the employer;
        • starting date of the employment;
        • expected length of the employment (in case the agreement is concluded for certain period of time);
        • place of work and/ or in case employee will be required to perform work duties in different places, this must be clearly indicated;
        • the position employee is employed for indicating also code of the profession according to Classification of Professions established by the State;
        • amount of remuneration agreed and date of payment thereof;
        • contracted work time per day or per week;
        • length of the annual paid leave;
        • notice periods of the Employment Agreement;
        • indication to Collective Agreement and internal procedures and policies of the company applicable to the said employment.

        These mandatory aspects must be included in the agreement irrespective of whether they are statutorily fixed or can be changed upon agreement of the parties. Moreover, in case further changes in these terms shall be required the employer is obliged to inform the employee on that with one month prior written notice. Whereas coming into effect of the amendments to the agreement shall be absolutely subject to agreement between the parties or it triggers rights for the employer to unilaterally terminate employment (based though on staff reduction argument). Thus clear statement of where the work place is forms one of the key elements of the employment and changing it is rather inflexible.

        But it must be also taken into account that historically the concept of a fixed work place is connected to certain additional and consequential aspects. Namely, performance of work in the work place indicated in the Employment Agreement is solely subject to payment of salary and if applicable – compensation for overtime, as a general rule – not less than in amount of 100% of the hourly or daily salary rate set. Whereas work outside the work place established by the Employment Agreement may be deemed one of two business trip types and statutory rule is to provide additional protection to employees when they have to perform their work outside used place, especially if this is away from home:

        • Business trip A (komandējums) – a trip for a certain period of time based on order of the employer, to another location either inland or abroad to perform work duties or to promote qualification. This business trip is subject to compensation by the employer of daily allowance at least in the statutorily established amount, transportation and luggage expenses, expenses for accommodation, parking expenses, insurance expenses, participations fees at the events and alike;
        • Business trip B (darba brauciens) – work of the employee, if it takes place while travelling in accordance with the concluded Employment Agreement/ job description, inland or abroad, if the work involves regular/ systematic trips and change of location. This business trip is subject to compensation by the employer of slightly less expenses than in case of the business trip A – transportation expenses, expenses for accommodation, parking expenses, insurance expenses, expenses for transportation of luggage and few more.

        At the end of the day it is significant for the employer to precisely establish whether this is employment at another place as provides Employment Agreement or one of the business trips, accordingly precisely detecting which business trip type is applied as on this depends the overall amount of expenses to be compensated for the employee. And even more, certain aspects as for instance whether the employee can return to the residence place at the end of the day can decrease the amount of compensation to be paid. Accordingly applying of a fixed place of work may be financial wise more advantageous for the employer than flexibility of location for the employee.

        Another challenge of the work outside the office premises is compliance with work and health safety rules. When the work is performed in office premises of the employer it is mandatory obligation of the employer to ensure safe and healthy work conditions for its employees that including air conditions, work place suitable to spend hours in performing duties, safe and suitable tools for work and alike. Likewise the employer is in charge of running trainings for employees in this respect.

        Before extraordinary Covid–19 circumstances remote work was present in Latvia; however it was merely optional and applied in exceptional cases. Each case requiring ongoing remote work was true stress to employers, because the only way how to mitigate responsibility of the employer in respect to work safety was to conclude an additional agreement, with the employee probably stating that it has been initiative of the employee to work remotely and employer has agreed to that, thus the liability in respect to the work safety (and health) condition being transferred fully to the employee.

        Co-working spaces as a first change in culture had shaken not only the traditional approach of what a work place should be, but also the statutory frame. Due to various forms of employment becoming more and more relevant, including remote work, when the employee works at home or elsewhere outside the company, necessity for adaption of the work safety regulation to current trends became inevitable.
        As a result in October 2019 amendments to the Labour Protection Law were adopted.
        The new regulation coming into effect on July 1, 2020 finally declares what is a remote work, excluding therefrom work which is related to regular travelling. The new rules also establish obligation for the remote work performer to cooperate and exchange information with the employer in evaluation of work safety risks in the environment the employee is going to perform the work, if such circumstances can endanger or impact safety and health of the employee. The support in evaluation of the work safety must be provided by the employer irrespective of number of locations the employee would decide to perform the work at. And the employer will be responsible for the recordkeeping in respect to such work place evaluations. Nevertheless the part of law in respect to liability has not changed overall – the employer remains responsible for work and health safety at work of the persons employed/ contracted.

        It can be already today predicted that practicalities of the newly established approach will cause a lot of tricky and disputable situations. In a culture where employees are not keen to take responsibility, the new regulation will trigger employee claims to finance and ensure working conditions per individual choice and ambitions unless the employers will develop precise internal policies and procedures on conditions and equipment company deems sufficient and appropriate for the particular position in which the employee is employed.

        Hence the statutory regulation obviously needs more of development and tests in deployment before Gig economy approach can be deemed as fitting the culture and expectations of the society and aligning the statutory rules.

        For performance of the work duties especially information and communications technologies (ICT) are required

        And finally – under the Gig economy performance of work remotely would not be possible without proper gadgets – PCs, smartphones, tablets etc.

        When it comes to extraordinary circumstances like Covid-19 our very well digitalized society appears to be well skilled mainly in using digital social media, but as far as it concerns doing work, not yet so sophisticated. Lockdown discovered that a lot of inhabitants of Latvia have very poor ICT with limited functionality, low security level and even outdated. When using such equipment for performance of work duties the productivity is under question, cooperation of employees limps, reaching results takes longer time. But even more – data (especially confidential information) of the employer is endangered when poor ICT solutions are used.

        If we take a look at digitalization of Latvia, although not much internationally advertised, it is at a high level.
        Already today Latvian society has access to:

        • Latvia has one of the fastest internet connections in the world;
        • registration of corporate changes with the Company Register by submitting electronically signed documents (www.ur.gov.lv; www.latvija.lv);
        • complying with tax reporting requirements via electronic tool of the State Revenue Service, providing all communication with the tax authority also electronically (eds.vid.gov.lv);
        • signing majority of documents (public and private) electronically with secure digital signature and a time stamp (granted based on and connected with ID and passport of an individual) issued by LVRTC – one of the leading electronic communication service providers in Latvia (www.eparaksts.lv). This signature is recognized and can be combined with similar electronic signatures of other countries, e.g. Lithuania and Estonia. Even more – since some time mobile version of the secure electronic signature (and time stamp) is available, which means that any documents can be signed also in a smart phone;
        • notaries of Latvia perform their duties and execute documents electronically with secure digital signature and a time stamp;
        • State and majority of municipal authorities are welcoming electronic communication;

        and many more electronic solutions.

        Irrespective of that the mindset of “paper prevails over other solutions” is still there in society. Attack of Covid-19 literally pushed the society towards digitalization in mindset too and actually understanding that tools and solutions required for remote business handing and employment are already there, now we only need to understand what would be the procedures to correctly implement those in real time and every day, because:

        • the old processes employees and employers are used to, do not work anymore;
        • both parties – employees and employers lack clarity on how to manage work with no stress or at least at proportionate stress level;
        • the remote work requires new skills not only for employees but also for management. How about control over employee work, what are the ways to manage it if all the team is not in one room;
        • no matter how digitally developed is the country each individual is though on different level of development in this respect, and this becomes true challenge when it comes to day-to-day remote work and cooperation;
        • and last but not least – the employers have invested in tools and equipment within on prems concept, whereas remote work needs different type of investment, more developed tools and IT security guarantees.

        This means that each company needs an actual transformation plan irrespective of the business it operates in. The digitalization is inevitable, it is a rational optimization of resources used, development of new skills and taking each employee on a whole new level of professional performance – individually and team wise. For companies digitalization increases competitiveness and readiness to unexpected circumstances and sustainability of business operation.

        So summarizing all the aspects analyzed during this article, Covid-19 has made people think not only, what is actual value of the employment and how one can concurrently protect employees and its business, but also how much of processes we can transform in an e-approach immediately and where we still need know-how and investment.
        Transforming into a Gig economy requires much more than overnight meditation with one thought – this shall pass. It is a new way of living.

        On March 31, 2020 the details of emergency measures where shared in a press conference and the scheme was published simultaneously. This memo sets out the main lines of the NOW scheme.

        Loss of turnover

        Under the NOW scheme, employers can apply for an allowance for labour costs if they expect a loss of turnover of at least 20%. The loss of turnover of at least 20% must occur over a three-month period starting on the first day of the months March, April or May 2020. It must always relate to a consecutive period of three months.

        The turnover is compared with 25% of the turnover from January to December 2019.

        The loss of turnover is determined at group level. If a group as a whole has a loss of turnover of less than 20%, no compensation will be paid to any individual parts of that group that are still inactive. Net turnover is taken as the net turnover, i.e. the income from the supply of goods and services from the business of the legal entity less discounts and the like and tax levied on the turnover.

        Wages and salaries

        The employer must pay the wages to the employees in full, but can apply to the UWV (social security insurer for employees) for an allowance for labour costs. On the other hand, the employee must also be fully available to perform work.

        The NOW scheme also covers employees with employees with a flexible contract insofar as they continue to be employed and receive wages from the employer during the subsidy period. The wage bill of all employees with a social security wage (virtually all) are eligible for the subsidy. These are, for example, employees with a so-called fictitious employment contract for employee insurance, but not voluntarily insured persons.

        Wages up to € 9,538 gross per month are considered, the amount surpassing the same is not considered for the subsidy. Additional charges and costs such as employer contributions and employee contributions to pension and the accrual of holiday allowance are also compensated. A lump-sum surcharge for employer charges of 30% applies.

        Advance payment

         The advance payment provided under the NOW is, in principle, based on the wage bill for the January 2020 return period. If there are no wage data for January 2020, the UWV will assume November 2019. If there are no data for this period either, no subsidy can be granted.

        If the wage bill for the months March-April-May is lower, the amount of the subsidy will be reduced by 90% of the amount by which the wage bill fell. The settlement is an incentive to keep employees employed as much as possible for the hours they worked before the severe drop in turnover.

        Calculation

        The amount of the allowance for wage costs depends on the drop in turnover and amounts to a maximum of 90% of the wage bill. For example: If 100% of the turnover is lost, the allowance amounts to 90% of the wage and salary bill of the employer and if 50% of the turnover is lost, the allowance amounts to 45% of the wage and salary bill of the employer.

        Extension of the arrangement

        It was previously announced that the period of the allowance, which is 3 months, may be extended once for a further period of 3 months. The Cabinet now announces that this extension has not yet been decided; it will be decided before 1 June 2020, so that any second tranche will be in line with the first application period ending on 31 May 2020. In case of extension, further conditions may be added to the scheme.

        Prohibition of dismissal

        When applying on the grounds of the NOW, the employer undertakes in advance not to apply for dismissal on the grounds of business economics for his employees during the period for which the allowance is received. The employer is therefore expected not to apply to the UWV for permission to terminate an employment contract on the grounds of business economics in the period from 18 March to 31 May 2020 inclusive. The prohibition on dismissal does not apply to dismissal applications submitted to the UWV in the period from 1 March to 17 March 2020.

        If a request for dismissal is nevertheless made and this request is not withdrawn (or not withdrawn on time), a correction will be made when the subsidy is determined. When the subsidy is determined, the wages of the employees for whom dismissal has been requested will be determined. This wage is then increased by 50%. This wage plus the 50% increase is deducted from the total wage sum on which the final amount of the subsidy is based.

        Submitting the request

        The UWV will be charged with processing the application. The applications are expected to be submitted on 6 April next. The first advance payments will be made within 2 to 4 weeks. This advance payment will in any case amount to 80% of the grant.

        Questo articolo si propone di illustrare le nuove norme in materia di parità di genere introdotte dal RDL 6/2019 applicabili a tutte le tipologie di imprese (indipendentemente dal numero di dipendenti), ed in particolare alle imprese che occupino almeno 50 dipendenti.

        La principale novità in questo senso consiste in un obbligo a carico delle aziende con almeno 50 dipendenti di attuare un Piano che promuova la parità di trattamento, in conformità alle disposizioni degli articoli 45 e seguenti della LOIEMH.

        Per quanto riguarda i contenuti e le modalità di attuazione del Piano di Parità nelle aziende, segnaliamo le seguenti novità:

        • I temi ed i contenuti minimi che devono essere inclusi nel singolo Piano di Parità sono indicati in modo esaustivo.
        • E’ introdotta un’analisi della sotto-rappresentazione femminile in azienda quale tema da includere nel Piano.
        • La valutazione che le imprese devono compiere in fase di elaborazione del Piano di Parità deve essere oggetto di negoziazione con il rappresentante legale dei lavoratori.
        • È istituito un Registro dei Piano di Parità delle imprese, nel quale vanno iscritti tutti i Piani di Parità adottato dalle imprese, indipendentemente dal numero di lavoratori occupati.

        L’RDL 6/2019 introduce peraltro una nuova formulazione dell’articolo 28 dello Statuto dei Lavoratori, la quale sancisce l’obbligo per le imprese di conformarsi al principio della parità retributiva tra uomini e donne, stabilendo una serie di misure e obblighi a carico delle imprese, al fine di garantire l’effettivo rispetto della parità retributiva.

        In particolare, le nuove misure inserite nell’articolo 28 dello Statuto sono le seguenti:

        • Il testo definisce la nozione di “lavoro di pari valore“, al fine di promuovere un criterio unico ed eliminare ogni dubbio al riguardo.
        • Le imprese sono tenute a mantenere un Registro delle Retribuzioni, riportando i valori medi delle retribuzioni, delle componenti retributive supplementari e delle percezioni extra-salariali del proprio personale, differenziando i dati per genere e distribuendoli per gruppi professionali, categorie professionali o posizioni di lavoro di pari valore.
        • Il Registro delle Retribuzioni dovrà essere reso accessibile al rappresentante legale dei lavoratori.
        • Nelle imprese che occupano almeno 50 lavoratori con una retribuzione media relativa ai lavoratori di un genere superiore di almeno il 25% rispetto a quella dell’altro, è necessario inserire nel Registro delle Retribuzioni una motivazione di tale disparità, certificando che essa è dovuta a ragioni diverse dal genere dei lavoratori.

        L’inosservanza degli obblighi in materia di parità e, in particolare, di quelli attinenti al Piano di Parità ed alla parità retributiva tra uomini e donne, può comportare l’applicazione di pesanti sanzioni da parte dell’Ispettorato del Lavoro e della “Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social”.

        On 28 May 2019 the Dutch Parliament adopted new employment legislation: The Balanced Labour Market Act (‘Wet Arbeidsmarkt in Balans’), hereinafter the WAB. The most important changes are discussed below.

        New cumulation ground for dismissal

        The legislation introduces a new ground for dismissal. This makes it a bit easier for employers to dismiss employees. Dismissal will also be possible if there is a sum of circumstances, the so-called cumulation ground. Now the employer must fully comply with 1 of the 8 grounds for dismissal. This new ground gives the court the opportunity to combine circumstances. The employee can receive an extra half transitional allowance (on top of the current statutory transitional allowance) if the cumulation ground is used for the dismissal.

        Severance: Transitional allowance

        The new act arranges that employees will have the right to a transitional allowance immediately from the first start of the employment contract, instead of only after two years.

        The accrual of transitional allowance is reduced in case of long-term employment. The accrual for everyone, regardless of the age of the employee, is one third of a monthly salary.

        There will be a scheme for small employers to compensate the transitional allowance if they have to end their business due to retirement or illness.

        Extending the scope of the chain of employment agreements

        The current period after which successive fixed-term employment contracts legally change into an employment contract for an indefinite period is two years. The WAB broadens the succession of temporary contracts. Under the WAB it will still be possible to enter into a maximum of three temporary contracts. The maximum period of fixed-term contracts will be extended to three years. This chain of successive fixed-term employment contracts can be broken by an interruption period of six months.

        It is possible to shorten the interruption period between a chain of fixed-term contracts in a Collective Bargaining Agreement from six to three months if there is recurring temporary work that can be done for a maximum of nine months a year.

        An exception to the chain provision will be made for temporary workers in primary education who replace employees who became ill.

        Call agreement

        A new definition is introduced in Article 7: 628a paragraph 9 of the Dutch Civil Code: the ‘call agreement’. In call agreements the number of working hours per period and the salary are not established upfront but can vary depending on for example the amount of work available. Under the WAB an employee must be called by the employer at least four days in advance. If the employer does not follow this regulation, the employee is not obligated to come in for work. Call workers retain the right to wages for the period for which they were called if the work is cancelled less than four days in advance. The employer is obliged to offer the call worker an employment contract after a year for the average number of hours that he has worked in the previous twelve months. In Collective Bargaining Agreements alternative arrangements can be made under certain conditions.

        Payrolling

        Payroll employees will receive the same legal position and primary and secondary employment conditions as employees who are employed by the employer.

        Payroll employees are also entitled to an ‘adequate’ pension scheme.

        Unemployment benefit premium differentiation

        In order to make employment contracts for an indefinite period of time more attractive for employers, the WAB arranges for an unemployment benefit premium differentiation between permanent and temporary contracts. A lower premium will apply for employment contracts for an indefinite period of time and a higher premium for fixed-term employment contracts.

        Commencing date

        The intended commencing date of the WAB is 1 January 2020. The right to an adequate pension scheme for payrolling starts on 1 January 2021.

        The author of this post is Regine de Wit.

        10 practical aspects to consider for an adequate timing

        Meanwhile similar legal standards apply in most industrialized countries if an employment relationship shall be terminated; however, in every jurisdiction some specifics still need to be considered. The following ten aspects may be a first general guideline for the termination of an employment contract in Germany, in particular regarding its timing.

        1. In some cases notice needs to be given within a two-week period

        In case of gross misconduct an employer may be entitled to terminate an employment relationship forthwith. However, if notice of termination is not served to the employee within two weeks after acknowledgement of the respective facts, this right is forfeited.

        1. Notice has to be given in writing

        The notice has to be signed by the legal representative of the employer and delivered to the employee. Neither a transmission by facsimile nor an email with a scanned copy is sufficient. If the representative is not on site, timing may become an essential aspect of the termination process.

        1. Ordinary dismissal may be prohibited by a collective bargaining agreement

        Collective bargaining agreements often provide a ban on ordinary dismissal under certain circumstances (e.g. based on the age of the employee). A careful assessment of all applicable collective bargaining agreements before a termination is therefore indispensable.

        1. Insufficient information of the works councils may lead to an invalid termination

        The establishment of a works council is not mandatory in Germany. However, if it is established, it needs to be notified and heard before every termination of an employment contract. The notification must contain a sufficient description of the grounds for the termination, otherwise the termination may be deemed invalid. Having been notified, the works council has one week (in some cases: three days) to object. Any termination before such term without consent of the works council would be deemed invalid as well. Timing may therefore become again an essential aspect of the termination process.

        1. General dismissal protection is related to seniority and size of the establishment

        General dismissal protection is basically applicable in establishments with more than 10 employees. Exceptions may apply in favour of those employees whose employment relationships commenced already before 1st January 2004. In addition, the respective employee needs to have at least a seniority of six month. If these criteria are met, the termination has to be justified by operational reasons, misconduct or personal incapacity as set out in the Dismissal Protection Act.

        1. Some terminations may need prior permission

        Irrespective of the application of the afore mentioned Dismissal Protection Act some kind of terminations (e.g. employees on parental leave) may need a special permission of the works council, the Labour Court or the respective public authority as applicable. These procedures may last from some days up to two years.

        1. There is no general claim for severance payment in case of an unfair dismissal

        Aside from those agreed in termination agreements there is no general claim for severance payment in case of an unfair dismissal. In general, the statutory remedy will only be reinstatement and back pay. Only under certain circumstances each party may apply for the termination of the employment relationship and a severance payment in front of the Labour Court. However, in most of the cases parties end up in a voluntary termination agreement.

        1. Non-competes may lead to extensive payments and cannot be withdrawn forthwith unilaterally without cause

        A binding covenant to non-compete leads to a compensation payment of at least 50 % of the former salary for every month of its duration. Even in case of a justified termination it may only be terminated with a notice period of one year. However, both parties may agree upon its immediate suspension in a termination agreement.

        1. Any termination agreement has to be in written form as well

        Also a termination agreement needs to fulfil the same formal requirements as set out already above under point 2. Again, if the representative is not on site, timing may become an essential aspect of the bargaining process.

        1. The forfeiture clause of a termination agreement may not cover all claims 

        Termination agreements often contain general forfeiture clauses at their end, covering also those potential claims which have not been explicitly mentioned or identified by the parties. However, some claims (e.g. pension claims) may not be covered by such a (general) forfeiture clause.

        Please note that these ten aspects contain general information only. Further details as well as possible exceptions therefore need to be checked on a case-by-case basis by a professional advisor.

         

        Tha author of this post is Alexander Lentz

        L’imprenditore che intenda concentrarsi esclusivamente sul proprio core business ha la possibilità di ricorrere ad altri imprenditori, a cui affidare la realizzazione di tutte quelle opere e di quei servizi comunque necessari per la gestione dell’impresa.

        Il termine tecnico che si utilizza per definire un tale modus operandi è quello di “esternalizzazione” di parte dell’attività imprenditoriale e, solitamente, l’accordo che regola tale tipologia di collaborazione è un contratto di appalto, vale a dire il contratto con il quale una parte si impegna a compiere un’opera o un servizio a favore di un’altra e verso un corrispettivo in denaro.

        Esempio di contratto di appalto d’opera potrebbe essere il contratto con il quale un’impresa edile si obbliga a costruire un palazzo per una società immobiliare; esempio di appalto di servizi potrebbe essere il contratto che si stipula con un’impresa di pulizie per la pulizia del proprio stabile.

        L’appalto ha per oggetto una prestazione di “fare” nell’ambito della quale un soggetto, detto appaltatore, si impegna a svolgere un’attività determinata, fornendo ed organizzando i mezzi necessari e gestendo la realizzazione a proprio rischio; è poi necessario che l’attività sia organizzata in forma di impresa e che quindi l’appaltatore sia, esso stesso, un imprenditore.

        In Italia lo strumento dell’appalto ha sempre avuto grande diffusione ed utilizzo e da sempre rappresenta lo strumento privilegiato per esternalizzare attività poco remunerative nell’ambito di realtà imprenditoriali complesse: obiettivo di chi ricorre all’appalto è quello di realizzare efficienza in termini di risorse, sia economiche (riduzione dei costi) che materiali (riduzione di personale e delle responsabilità connesse alla sua gestione).

        Quanto sopra vale anche per gli imprenditori esteri che gestiscono o decidono di avviare un’attività in Italia: l’appalto rappresenta un ottimo strumento per delegare ad altri soggetti, in loco e con una specifica expertise in materia, la gestione di problematiche complesse quali: l’ottenimento di autorizzazioni pubbliche, l’approvvigionamento di particolari materie prime, il reclutamento sul territorio di risorse umane qualificate.

        L’esternalizzazione della attività non è un fenomeno omogeneo e le esigenze che spesso si presentano in concreto sono suscettibili di prestarsi anche a differenti soluzioni, a seconda dell’oggetto della prestazione, della tipologia e delle caratteristiche del committente o della particolare natura degli interessi coinvolti.

        Proprio in virtù delle suddette particolarità molto spesso, in luogo del contratto di appalto, l’imprenditore fa ricorso al contratto di subfornitura.

        Con il contratto di subfornitura un imprenditore si impegna a effettuare, per conto di una impresa committente, lavorazioni su prodotti semilavorati o su materie prime forniti dalla committente medesima, o si impegna a fornire all’impresa prodotti o servizi destinati ad essere incorporati o comunque ad essere utilizzati nell’ambito dell’attività economica del committente o nella produzione di un bene complesso, in conformità a progetti esecutivi, conoscenze tecniche e tecnologiche, modelli o prototipi forniti dall’impresa committente.

        Sintetizzando e forse banalizzando fiorenti dibattiti dottrinali e giurisprudenziali, potremmo dire che molto spesso la differenza tra un appalto di servizi e la “subfornitura” consiste nel fatto che in caso di subfornitura le attività oggetto del contratto vengono svolte su materiali del committente e/o consistono nella realizzazione di beni o servizi funzionali al processo produttivo del committente; in ogni caso, la subfornitura comporta la “dipendenza tecnologica” (ed anche economica) del subfornitore nei confronti del committente.

        Proprio il decentramento e la dissociazione che l’esternalizzazione di processi e attività realizza tra il “gestore” dell’attività esternalizzata ed il fruitore finale della stessa, suscita da sempre grande attenzione da parte del legislatore italiano.

        Attenzione finalizzata a tutelare soprattutto i dipendenti coinvolti nell’attività esternalizzata in caso di eventi nefasti idonei a privarli di garanzie legali di cui, invece, possono continuare a godere i dipendenti dell’appaltante committente (pensiamo ad esempio alla sofferenza finanziaria dell’appaltatore/subfornitore, o addirittura al suo coinvolgimento in procedure concorsuali, da cui derivi il mancato pagamento di retribuzioni e contributi).

        Per tali ragioni, ormai a far data dal 2003, il legislatore italiano ha introdotto un oneroso regime di solidarietà tra committente e appaltatore, nonché con ciascuno degli eventuali subappaltatori che, entro il limite di due anni dalla cessazione dell’appalto, sono obbligati in solido a corrispondere ai lavoratori i trattamenti retributivi, comprese le quote di trattamento di fine rapporto, nonché i contributi previdenziali e i premi assicurativi dovuti in relazione al periodo di esecuzione del contratto di appalto.

        Sino al mese di dicembre del 2017 la giurisprudenza di merito era consolidata nel ritenere che il regime della responsabilità solidale fosse applicabile esclusivamente all’appalto di servizi e non alla subfornitura. Circostanza questa che rendeva il ricorso alla subfornitura potenzialmente meno oneroso per il committente.

        Con sentenza n. 254 del 6 dicembre scorso, tuttavia, la prospettiva è stata completamente ribaltata dalla Corte Costituzionale che chiamata a pronunciarsi in materia ha stabilito l’applicazione estensiva del principio della responsabilità solidale anche tra committente e subfornitore.

        La sentenza parte dall’analisi della nota questione giurisprudenziale circa la configurazione giuridica del contratto di subfornitura e, in particolare, circa l’autonomia o meno del contratto di fornitura rispetto al contratto di appalto.

        Senza entrare nel merito del dibattito giurisprudenziale esistente, la Corte Costituzionale sostiene che, al di là dell’orientamento seguito quanto all’assimilazione o meno della subfornitura al contratto di appalto, è possibile operare l’estensione della responsabilità del committente/appaltatore ai crediti di lavoro dei dipendenti del subfornitore.

        Ciò in quanto l’introduzione della norma sulla responsabilità solidale in ipotesi di appalto, non può giustificare l’esclusione della medesima garanzia nei confronti dei dipendenti del subfornitore, atteso che la tutela del soggetto che assicura un’attività lavorativa indiretta non può non estendersi a tutti i livelli di decentramento.

        Sulla base di tali considerazioni, dunque, il principio della responsabilità solidale va correttamente interpretato nel senso che il committente/appaltatore è obbligato in solido (anche) con il subfornitore, relativamente ai crediti lavorativi, contributivi e assicurativi dei dipendenti di questi, al pari quindi di quanto lo è verso i dipendenti del subappaltatore.

        In sostanza il committente risponde direttamente, salvo successiva rivalsa, per le rivendicazioni economiche avanzate dai dipendenti dell’appaltatore, del subappaltatore e del subfornitore e di tutti i lavoratori che dovessero essere stati utilizzati nell’attività esternalizzata in relazione a: i) crediti retributivi maturati durante il periodo di correlazione tra committente ed impresa che ha eseguito i lavori, ivi compresi, “pro – quota”, quelli relativi al trattamento di fine rapporto; e ii) contributi previdenziali e premi assicurativi dovuti per il periodo di esecuzione della prestazione.

        Il lavoratore può chiedere direttamente al committente il pagamento di quanto maturato nei confronti del proprio datore. Il committente, chiamato in giudizio, non può mai chiedere l’escussione del coobbligato in solido: deve pagare salva l’azione di regresso.

        Il committente quindi, nonostante l’esigenza iniziale fosse quella di fare efficienza e ridurre costi, può trovarsi esposto ad un rischio economico molto maggiore rispetto al costo risparmiato, soprattutto se le rivendicazioni economiche riguardano situazioni non controllabili a priori: facciamo riferimento ad esempio, all’eventuale personale utilizzato “in maniera irregolare” dall’appaltatore/subfornitore, oppure alle rivendicazioni connesse allo svolgimento di mansioni superiori, od anche alla richiesta di lavoro straordinario al di fuori dei parametri di legge.

        Esistono naturalmente sistemi e meccanismi idonei a contenere il rischio o, comunque, idonei a garantire al committente maggiore controllo sul corretto funzionamento della filiera esternalizzata.

        Tra questi, ad esempio, alla possibilità di prevedere contrattualmente strumenti di tutela economica quali fideiussioni e manleve.

        Ma esiste anche la possibilità di implementare, sempre nel contratto, un adeguato sistema di controllo sulla corretta gestione del personale nonché sull’erogazione di retribuzioni, contributi e premi assicurativi.

        Alla luce di quanto sopra, concludiamo individuando nella figura del consulente esperto in materia di diritto del lavoro il miglior supporto per l’imprenditore che intenda avventurarsi in maniera consapevole e sicura in un processo di esternalizzazione.

        L’autore di questo articolo è Domenica Cotroneo.

        Il distacco transnazionale di lavoratori è quel meccanismo attraverso cui le imprese di uno Stato membro prestano servizi in un altro Stato membro inviando direttamente i propri dipendenti nel territorio di quest’ultimo.

        Nel corso degli ultimi 20 anni tale fenomeno è cresciuto in maniera rilevante a livello europeo, soprattutto a seguito dell’ingresso nell’Unione dei Paesi dell’est, che avevano – e in parte continuano ad avere – un costo del lavoro sensibilmente più basso di quello degli altri Stati membri.

        Il fenomeno è stato quindi oggetto di diversi interventi del legislatore europeo e di quelli nazionali, nonché di alcune rilevanti decisioni della Corte di Giustizia. Esso si pone infatti in relazione con diversi diritti fondamentali riconosciuti dall’Unione e richiede un equilibrato bilanciamento degli interessi in gioco.

        Occorre garantire le libertà di circolazione di lavoratori,  capitali e merci e, in particolare, la libera prestazione dei servizi (art. 56 TFUE), salvaguardando al contempo la leale concorrenza tra le imprese e la tutela dei lavoratori. Il legislatore comunitario intervenne sul tema con la Direttiva 96/71/CE (attuata in Italia col D. Lgs. 72/2000), poi integrata dalla Direttiva 2014/67/UE (attuata in Italia col D. Lgs. 136/2016).

        Il legislatore europeo e quello nazionale perseguono con le citate disposizioni due principali obiettivi:

        – contrastare i distacchi fittizi attraverso società di comodo, le cosiddette letterbox company, garantendo equilibrio concorrenziale a livello europeo;

        – garantire uniformità di trattamento e di tutela ai lavoratori coinvolti, impedendo fenomeni di ‘dumping sociale’.

        Per raggiungere questi obiettivi viene rafforzato il sistema di cooperazione amministrativa tra le diverse autorità ispettive nazionali,  vengono individuati criteri predefiniti per la valutazione dell’autenticità del distacco e vengono stabilite condizioni minime da garantire ai lavoratori.

        Per valutare l’autenticità del distacco, l’art. 4 della direttiva 2014/67/UE (recepito nell’art. 3 della legge italiana) indica alcune caratteristiche da prendere in considerazione con riferimento alle imprese coinvolte e ai lavoratori distaccati.

        Per le imprese sono considerati rilevanti i seguenti elementi:

        1. a) il luogo in cui l’impresa ha la propria sede legale e amministrativa, utilizza uffici, paga imposte e contributi previdenziali ed è iscritta alla camera di commercio;
        2. b) il luogo in cui i lavoratori sono assunti e quello da cui sono distaccati;
        3. c) la legge applicabile ai contratti stipulati dall’impresa con i suoi lavoratori e con i suoi clienti;
        4. d) il luogo in cui l’impresa esercita la propria attività economica principale e in cui è occupato il suo personale amministrativo;
        5. e) il numero dei contratti eseguiti o l’ammontare del fatturato realizzato dall’impresa nello Stato membro di stabilimento, tenendo conto della specificità delle piccole e medie imprese e di quelle di nuova costituzione.

        Per i lavoratori vengono prese in considerazione queste circostanze:

        1. a) lo svolgimento dell’attività lavorativa per un periodo di tempo limitato in un altro Stato membro;
        2. b) la data di inizio del distacco;
        3. c) l’esercizio abituale dell’attività lavorativa nello Stato di provenienza;
        4. d) il ritorno a prestare attività lavorativa nello Stato cui è stato distaccato;
        5. e) la natura e le modalità di svolgimento dell’attività;
        6. f) il rimborso da parte del datore di lavoro distaccante delle spese di viaggio, vitto o alloggio  e le modalità di pagamento;
        7. g) eventuali periodi precedenti in cui la medesima attività è stata svolta dallo stesso o da un altro lavoratore distaccato.

        Tutte queste circostanze devono essere considerate nel loro complesso, nessuna è di per sé decisiva e spetta alle autorità nazionali la valutazione finale dell’autenticità o meno del distacco.

        L’eventuale accertamento di un distacco fittizio determina rilevanti sanzioni amministrative a carico sia dell’impresa distaccante che di quella utilizzatrice, nonché la loro corresponsabilità per i crediti dei lavoratori.

        Il legislatore italiano ha inoltre rafforzato tale previsione: in simmetria con quanto previsto per i casi di intermediazione illecita di mano d’opera, ha infatti stabilito che, se il distacco non risulta autentico, “il lavoratore è considerato a tutti gli effetti alle dipendenze del soggetto che ne ha utilizzato la prestazione” (art. 3 legge italiana).

        Ai fini della tutela dei lavoratori e dell’equilibrio concorrenziale, l’art. 3 della direttiva 96/71/CE (art. 4 della legge italiana) stabilisce che, qualunque sia la legislazione applicabile al rapporto di lavoro, gli Stati membri devono far sì che ai lavoratori distaccati sul loro territorio siano garantite, per il periodo del distacco, condizioni di lavoro analoghe a quelle dei lavoratori nazionali. In particolare, i lavoratori distaccati devono godere di un trattamento equivalente in relazione a:

        – periodi massimi di lavoro e minimi di riposo;

        – durata minima delle ferie annuali retribuite;

        – tariffe minime salariali;

        – sicurezza e salute sul lavoro;

        – tutela per lavoratrici madri, bambini e giovani;

        – parità di trattamento uomo/donna e principi di non discriminazione.

        Dal punto di vista pratico, l’aspetto di più complessa valutazione riguarda le tariffe minime salariali. Nei diversi paesi dell’Unione esse sono infatti definite in maniera diversa, da fonti diverse (legge/fonti amministrative/contratti collettivi) e sono composte da molte voci, non sempre sovrapponibili.

        D’altro canto, gli aspetti economici sono determinanti per imprese e lavoratori per valutare l’opportunità e la convenienza del distacco.

        Proprio per queste ragioni, la Corte di Giustizia ha chiarito che il confronto tra le diverse tariffe nazionali deve essere condotto confrontando l’importo complessivo e non le singole voci salariali. La Corte ha inoltre precisato che il confronto deve essere limitato alle voci retributive in senso stretto, cioè in diretta relazione con la prestazione, escludendo per esempio i premi supplementari. Infine la giurisprudenza comunitaria ha chiarito che le voci retributive da prendere in considerazione devono essere accessibili e chiare per il datore di lavoro distaccante.

        Da ultimo le disposizioni europee impongono agli Stati membri di consentire ai lavoratori distaccati sul loro territorio l’accesso agli strumenti di tutela, anche giudiziaria, predisposti per i lavoratori nazionali.

        A questo fine, in Italia si è esplicitamente prevista la facoltà, per i lavoratori distaccati, di agire sia in sede amministrativa che giudiziale (art. 5 legge italiana).

        In Spagna il licenziamento viene classificato individuale o collettivo, a seconda del numero di lavoratori assoggettati a tale misura.

        L’articolo 51 dello Statuto dei Lavoratori considera “licenziamento collettivo” l’estinzione del rapporto di lavoro causata da motivazioni economiche, tecniche, organizzative o di produzione quando, nel periodo di novanta giorni, coinvolga: (i) almeno dieci lavoratori di un’impresa con meno di 100 dipendenti; (ii) il dieci per cento dei lavoratori in una impresa che abbia tra cento e trecento dipendenti; (iii) trenta lavoratori nelle imprese con più di trecento dipendenti.

        Il licenziamento potrà essere impugnato in sede giudiziale, entro 20 giorni lavorativi e potrà essere dichiarato legittimo (procedente), illegittimo (improcedente) o nullo.

        Il licenziamento si considera legittimo quando è confermato l’inadempimento da parte del lavoratore contestato dall’imprenditore nella comunicazione del licenziamento e sono stati soddisfatti i requisiti formali, quali (i) la comunicazione per iscritto al lavoratore; (ii) una sufficiente descrizione dei fatti che hanno determinato il licenziamento e (iii) l’indicazione della data a partire della quale il licenziamento sarà efficace.

        Sarà dichiarato illegittimo il licenziamento privo dei requisiti citati nel paragrafo precedente.

        Il licenziamento è nullo nei seguenti casi: (i) violazione dei diritti fondamentali o libertà pubblica; (ii) il lavoratore è una vittima di violenza di genere; (iii) salvo che si dimostri la giusta causa, nei casi di: lavoratrici incinte, con permesso di maternità, paternità o allattamento, o con riduzione della giornata lavorativa per curare un minore di dodici anni o una persona con una incapacità fisica, psichica o sensoriale.

        Nel caso in cui il licenziamento sia dichiarato illegittimo, l’imprenditore entro cinque giorni dovrà scegliere se reintegrare il lavoratore nel posto di lavoro (e pagargli le mensilità trascorse tra il licenziamento e la notificazione della sentenza, i cosiddetti salarios de tramitación) oppure pagargli l’indennità, il cui importo dipende dalla durata del rapporto, come si analizzerà di seguito. Nel caso in cui il lavoratore licenziato sia un rappresentante sindacale, la scelta tra le due opzioni spetterà al lavoratore e non all’imprenditore.

        Se il licenziamento è dichiarato nullo, l’imprenditore avrà l’obbligo di reintegrare il lavoratore nel posto di lavoro e potrà essere condannato al risarcimento dei danni assieme al pagamento delle mensilità trascorse tra il licenziamento e la notifica della sentenza.

        Come accennato in precedenza, l’indennità dovuta al lavoratore (alternativa al reintegro per i licenziamenti illegittimi) dipende dal momento in cui è iniziato il rapporto di lavoro.

        L’indennità da pagare nel caso del licenziamento di un lavoratore assunto dopo il 12 febbraio 2012, sarà pari a 33 giorni di retribuzione per ogni anno lavorato.

        Nel caso in cui il lavoratore licenziato sia stato assunto prima del 12 febbraio 2012, l’indennità verrà calcolata come segue:

        • per il periodo trascorso tra la firma del contratto e il 12 febbraio 2012, l’indennità è pari a 45 giorni di retribuzione per ogni anno di rapporto;
        • sarà pari a 33 giorni di retribuzione per ogni anno lavorato dopo il 12 febbraio 2012.

        In ogni caso l’indennità non potrà ammontare a più di 720 giorni di retribuzione, salvo il caso in cui, dal calcolo dell’indennità del periodo precedente il 12 febbraio 2012, risultasse un numero di giorni superiore a 720, nel quale l’indennità non potrà essere superiore a quarantadue mensilità.

        Inoltre è importante ricordare che l’indennità in caso di licenziamento è esente da qualunque imposta fino a 180.000 euro. Per la cifra superiore, la tassazione sarà parificata ai redditi di lavoro, con una riduzione del 30% nel caso di rapporto di lavoro terminato da almeno due anni.

        Javier Gaspar

        Aree di attività

        • Arbitrato
        • Distribuzione
        • Franchising
        • Contenzioso
        • Sport
        Contatta Javier
        Latvia - Legalmondo

        Latvia – Establishing a company
        • Diritto societario
        • Lettonia

        Scrivi a Javier





          Leggi la privacy policy di Legalmondo.
          Questo sito è protetto da reCAPTCHA e si applicano le Norme sulla privacy e i Termini di servizio di Google.

          France – The “Macron” decrees on labour

          6 Marzo 2018

          • Francia
          • Lavoro

          Today during Covid–19 circumstances Gig economy approach has become more necessity rather than theoretical possibility. But still transformation of Latvian business and employment market does not run so smooth. Why so?

          At the end of year 2019 the State Labour Inspectorate of Latvia in cooperation with private partners released results of a research on new forms of employment presence and potential in Latvia (http://www.vdi.gov.lv/files/jnf_gala_zinojums.pdf). The results of this research as well of other international researches are rather controversial as do not conform to the real situation in the country.

          Although the aforementioned researches claim that employers in Latvia are supporters of old-style employment and are not willing to change the practice, in fact the laws of Latvia in effect do not provide flexibility on the approach of employment.

          Covid-19 has badly hit a lot of economies, and actually highlighted the largest challenges – employers to save their business would like to pay less, whereas employees need flexibility as they are required to work remotely and combine their private and work lives.

          In this article an analysis of how general conditions of employment applicable today correspond to frame of main five aspects of a Gig economy will be provided.

          Employment “one to one” or “one to many”

          Gig economy considers that traditional employment has no longer place in our world. The employment should be available among one employer and many employees, many employers and many employees or one employee and many employers, thus employment being in each contractual relations part time, nevertheless all employees are jointly and severally liable for the result of work.

          Labour Law of Latvia keeps traditions of employment – one employer and one employee. Likewise part time work is permitted just in statutorily listed cases like to replace an employee in long term absence, in case of increase of the workload in the company, in emergency cases, and in certain areas like culture, sports, banking, education and diplomacy. Moreover, length of a fixed-term employment may not exceed 5 years in total (including extensions). As a result of this majority of employments are open ended.

          In order to solve the burden imposed by law, employers often use potential employees as external service providers based on a Service Agreement in this manner imitating self employment. Self employment for a payor is less expensive tax wise, which led authorities to introduce limiting measures for flexibility of entrepreneurs.
          In the Law on Personal Income Tax criteria of employment per se where introduced. Namely, an agreement with an individual can be deemed as contractual relationships subject to payment of salary and accordingly payroll if at least one of the following conditions has been ascertained:

          • the individual has economic dependence upon the party to whom he/she provides services;
          • lack of assumption of financial risks in the fulfilment of work or no liability in respect to lost debtor debts;
          • integration of the contracted individual into the company to which services are provided (e.g. existence of a work or recreational areas, a duty to observe internal rules of the company);
          • availability of holidays and paid leave in accordance with schedules of the company;
          • work shall be performed under management or control of the other contracting party – the customer, and the individual is deprived of possibility to involve in the service provision his/ her personnel or sub-contractors; or
          • the individual is not owner of the assets used while rendering services to the company.

          Respectively in case the State Revenue Service of Latvia (tax authority) detects presence of the criteria listed, it shall be entitled to reclassify the contractual relations of the seemingly independent parties into employment relations as a result of which remuneration paid to the individual would be subject to full payroll as any other salary gained on basis of Employment Agreement. The tax expense threshold the companies playing with by out of box employment results in significant difference:

          • payroll in case of employment – progressive personal income tax between 20% to 23% depending on the income (at certain level the annual income of an individual may though be subject to maximum rate of the personal income tax – 31.4%); social security contributions of 35.09%; majority of these expenses being on the employer’s shoulders; whereas
          • taxes applicable in case of self-employment – progressive personal income tax between 20% to 31.4% depending on the income; social security contributions of 32.15%, basis of these compulsory contributions being a freely chosen income; in this case if the contracted individual is a registered economic operator – the taxes are all his/her liability, whereas if the individual has not registered with tax authorities independent economic activity, the taxes shall be withheld at the moment of disbursement of the remuneration and paid into the State budget by the company contracting the individual.

          In circumstances of Covid–19 the traditional employment scenarios chosen by entrepreneurs due to rather strict statutory rules have heavily impacted operation of businesses as employers had to either dismiss their employees or let them in idleness with crisis management allowance established by the State as support during Covid–19.

          The outcome showed that applying of different type of “employment” structures, like contracting specialists on the need to basis or crowdsourcing of employees among numerous employers could have facilitated challenges the employers face today in many ways – provide availability of different specialists for the project/ time period required, limit expenses in respect to the employees whom the companies were forced to let in idleness, and alike, all of this still keeping the business running.

          Employment volatility as new formula for flexibility

          As described earlier, present requirements of the Labour Law of Latvia require employment relationships to be based on clear and sustainable rules thus ensuring predictable and long term support to the employees, both in terms of employment and social security.
          The strict approach is even more secured by strict statutory conditions and notice periods under which an employee can be dismissed:

          With a notice of immediate effect:

          • while performing work the employee has acted unlawfully and therefore has lost trust of the employer;
          • while performing the work employee is in a state of intoxication (e.g. alcohol, drugs, other); or
          • the employee is unable to perform the contracted work due to a state of health, and this is confirmed by a medical opinion;

          With a 10 days notice:

          • in case employee has without justifiable reason materially violated the contracted work order;
          • while performing the work the employee has acted contrary to good morals, and such action is incompatible with the continuation of the employment;
          • the employee has grossly violated work safety rules and endangered safety and health of other persons; or
          • due to temporary incapacity of the employee for work for more than 6 and up to 12 months;

          With a one month notice:

          • if the employee is in lack of sufficient professional skills to perform the contracted work;
          • an employee previously employed in the particular position has been reinstated to work;
          • in case of staff redundancy (presuming that employer will not hire immediately new employee in same position); or
          • in case the employer is being liquidated.

          Having seen the list of statutory conditions one would definitely agree that only few circumstances are of a regular character, meaning can be actually applied, whereas the rest are seldom met. Sure there is also available an exception out of this strongly established frame – to terminate employment without any specific reason if the employee and employer can reach a mutual agreement. However that may be a challenge – employees are not obliged to participate in negotiations with employers and can simply walk away.

          So how much of volatility and flexibility can be reached in such strongly fixed statutory frame?
          Practically not much.

          Accordingly under Covid–19 circumstances companies have applied staff redundancy condition more than ever, which may not have been necessary if employment structures would be more flexible. Part of employees today let in idleness have started to look for new job even before the actual dismissal, because perception of stability and predictability is the driving force. This actually showing that although employment of a periodical character would not provide long term income and social security, with this approach the employees of Latvia would have been more used and resistant to fast changing circumstances and periods of actual idleness (meaning also – had some savings).

          It appears that development of economy and business approaches runs on a speed of light, whereas statutory regulation does not manage to follow in those footsteps. The question is though do we need today law and regulation for each detail, if in practice changes come into our lives so fast. Maybe a better solution would be regulation on general principles and practically providing field of different approaches and solutions which would fit more each business segment and keep economy running also in such extraordinary circumstances as Covid-19.

          A close cooperation among numerous employers

          The Gig economy concept provides for presence of different types of cooperation among employers and employees, including crowdsourcing of personnel, sharing of working spaces, liaising business operations and sharing liability in respect to work performed.

          Under present requirements of employment and tax laws of Latvia having shared workforce is rather complicated. The statutory restrictions keep accountability of employers at a very high level thus at the end of the day the approach of traditional employment – “one employer and one employee” – on Latvian market appears to be the easiest. Likewise the strict statutory rules have developed certain culture also on the employee side – “I have one master” seems the most correct and secure way and any other solutions are simply out of discussion.

          As an example, it took years for the Latvian market to admit that employees can be also leased out. Due to long term difficulties with practical applicability of this concept and contractual split of liabilities between lessor and lessee in respect to the employee (being those days at full discretion of the contractual parties), not always being favourable for the employee, in year 2011 changes to the Labour Law were introduced. The amendments established precise definition on what a lease of employees is, the scope of liability and split of duties among the parties resulting therefrom. However not without creating new burdens.

          The statutory protection level of employees on the Latvian market has always been very high and same became applicable in case of lease of workforce. No doubt employees have to be protected; however employee lease is a slightly different way of employment and therefore the regulation in place is still not always compatible with differentiation of employment schemes possible. Last but not least, another aspect complicating applicability of lease of employees is that lease of workforce is set as licensable operation. The procedure to obtain license is complicate enough and involves preparation of paper loads, moreover under statutory requirements a license must be obtained even if the employees are leased between related companies. Thus benefits of this employment structure are certainly disputable.

          Crowdsourcing of employees is the next step; however theoretically possible already today. Individuals could become self employed specialists and enter into contracts with different companies, thus avoiding of the risk under Law on Personal Income Tax (described in this article earlier) to be recognized as employee of any of these companies provided of course that the individual assumes certain financial risks and does job with his/her own tools in majority. It can be considered also as mitigation of risks for both parties – the individual has certain financial and social security stability, as losing one customer would not heavily impact the individual’s income and life quality; whereas on the company’s side – expenses can be planned according to business plans and necessity. But not all individuals are today ready to work without strong supervision and assume full liability.

          Covid-19 showed that flexibility should be introduced. Moreover a plan on mitigation of risks and business sustainability are not just nice words, it is a must have plan to be updated constantly for the companies to be ready for extraordinary situations. Likewise stability the employees consider they have due to open ended “one master” employment are very volatile, the risks are always out there and nothing should be deemed as for granted.

          Nevertheless, pure employment issues are not the only challenges in the Gig economy approach.

          Remote and digital employment – the skills for the future

          Gig economy idea claims for flexibility and free choice of place to be, which for a traditional society like Latvia is a true challenge. Historically established traditions of frame and control in each aspect are still alive and part of the culture, whereas new generation which was born in years of independence already with their different view is considered as rebels.

          Labor Law of Latvia states ten mandatory terms and conditions to be included in each that Employment Agreements:

          • name, surname, ID number/ birth date, address of the employee; name, registration number, address of the employer;
          • starting date of the employment;
          • expected length of the employment (in case the agreement is concluded for certain period of time);
          • place of work and/ or in case employee will be required to perform work duties in different places, this must be clearly indicated;
          • the position employee is employed for indicating also code of the profession according to Classification of Professions established by the State;
          • amount of remuneration agreed and date of payment thereof;
          • contracted work time per day or per week;
          • length of the annual paid leave;
          • notice periods of the Employment Agreement;
          • indication to Collective Agreement and internal procedures and policies of the company applicable to the said employment.

          These mandatory aspects must be included in the agreement irrespective of whether they are statutorily fixed or can be changed upon agreement of the parties. Moreover, in case further changes in these terms shall be required the employer is obliged to inform the employee on that with one month prior written notice. Whereas coming into effect of the amendments to the agreement shall be absolutely subject to agreement between the parties or it triggers rights for the employer to unilaterally terminate employment (based though on staff reduction argument). Thus clear statement of where the work place is forms one of the key elements of the employment and changing it is rather inflexible.

          But it must be also taken into account that historically the concept of a fixed work place is connected to certain additional and consequential aspects. Namely, performance of work in the work place indicated in the Employment Agreement is solely subject to payment of salary and if applicable – compensation for overtime, as a general rule – not less than in amount of 100% of the hourly or daily salary rate set. Whereas work outside the work place established by the Employment Agreement may be deemed one of two business trip types and statutory rule is to provide additional protection to employees when they have to perform their work outside used place, especially if this is away from home:

          • Business trip A (komandējums) – a trip for a certain period of time based on order of the employer, to another location either inland or abroad to perform work duties or to promote qualification. This business trip is subject to compensation by the employer of daily allowance at least in the statutorily established amount, transportation and luggage expenses, expenses for accommodation, parking expenses, insurance expenses, participations fees at the events and alike;
          • Business trip B (darba brauciens) – work of the employee, if it takes place while travelling in accordance with the concluded Employment Agreement/ job description, inland or abroad, if the work involves regular/ systematic trips and change of location. This business trip is subject to compensation by the employer of slightly less expenses than in case of the business trip A – transportation expenses, expenses for accommodation, parking expenses, insurance expenses, expenses for transportation of luggage and few more.

          At the end of the day it is significant for the employer to precisely establish whether this is employment at another place as provides Employment Agreement or one of the business trips, accordingly precisely detecting which business trip type is applied as on this depends the overall amount of expenses to be compensated for the employee. And even more, certain aspects as for instance whether the employee can return to the residence place at the end of the day can decrease the amount of compensation to be paid. Accordingly applying of a fixed place of work may be financial wise more advantageous for the employer than flexibility of location for the employee.

          Another challenge of the work outside the office premises is compliance with work and health safety rules. When the work is performed in office premises of the employer it is mandatory obligation of the employer to ensure safe and healthy work conditions for its employees that including air conditions, work place suitable to spend hours in performing duties, safe and suitable tools for work and alike. Likewise the employer is in charge of running trainings for employees in this respect.

          Before extraordinary Covid–19 circumstances remote work was present in Latvia; however it was merely optional and applied in exceptional cases. Each case requiring ongoing remote work was true stress to employers, because the only way how to mitigate responsibility of the employer in respect to work safety was to conclude an additional agreement, with the employee probably stating that it has been initiative of the employee to work remotely and employer has agreed to that, thus the liability in respect to the work safety (and health) condition being transferred fully to the employee.

          Co-working spaces as a first change in culture had shaken not only the traditional approach of what a work place should be, but also the statutory frame. Due to various forms of employment becoming more and more relevant, including remote work, when the employee works at home or elsewhere outside the company, necessity for adaption of the work safety regulation to current trends became inevitable.
          As a result in October 2019 amendments to the Labour Protection Law were adopted.
          The new regulation coming into effect on July 1, 2020 finally declares what is a remote work, excluding therefrom work which is related to regular travelling. The new rules also establish obligation for the remote work performer to cooperate and exchange information with the employer in evaluation of work safety risks in the environment the employee is going to perform the work, if such circumstances can endanger or impact safety and health of the employee. The support in evaluation of the work safety must be provided by the employer irrespective of number of locations the employee would decide to perform the work at. And the employer will be responsible for the recordkeeping in respect to such work place evaluations. Nevertheless the part of law in respect to liability has not changed overall – the employer remains responsible for work and health safety at work of the persons employed/ contracted.

          It can be already today predicted that practicalities of the newly established approach will cause a lot of tricky and disputable situations. In a culture where employees are not keen to take responsibility, the new regulation will trigger employee claims to finance and ensure working conditions per individual choice and ambitions unless the employers will develop precise internal policies and procedures on conditions and equipment company deems sufficient and appropriate for the particular position in which the employee is employed.

          Hence the statutory regulation obviously needs more of development and tests in deployment before Gig economy approach can be deemed as fitting the culture and expectations of the society and aligning the statutory rules.

          For performance of the work duties especially information and communications technologies (ICT) are required

          And finally – under the Gig economy performance of work remotely would not be possible without proper gadgets – PCs, smartphones, tablets etc.

          When it comes to extraordinary circumstances like Covid-19 our very well digitalized society appears to be well skilled mainly in using digital social media, but as far as it concerns doing work, not yet so sophisticated. Lockdown discovered that a lot of inhabitants of Latvia have very poor ICT with limited functionality, low security level and even outdated. When using such equipment for performance of work duties the productivity is under question, cooperation of employees limps, reaching results takes longer time. But even more – data (especially confidential information) of the employer is endangered when poor ICT solutions are used.

          If we take a look at digitalization of Latvia, although not much internationally advertised, it is at a high level.
          Already today Latvian society has access to:

          • Latvia has one of the fastest internet connections in the world;
          • registration of corporate changes with the Company Register by submitting electronically signed documents (www.ur.gov.lv; www.latvija.lv);
          • complying with tax reporting requirements via electronic tool of the State Revenue Service, providing all communication with the tax authority also electronically (eds.vid.gov.lv);
          • signing majority of documents (public and private) electronically with secure digital signature and a time stamp (granted based on and connected with ID and passport of an individual) issued by LVRTC – one of the leading electronic communication service providers in Latvia (www.eparaksts.lv). This signature is recognized and can be combined with similar electronic signatures of other countries, e.g. Lithuania and Estonia. Even more – since some time mobile version of the secure electronic signature (and time stamp) is available, which means that any documents can be signed also in a smart phone;
          • notaries of Latvia perform their duties and execute documents electronically with secure digital signature and a time stamp;
          • State and majority of municipal authorities are welcoming electronic communication;

          and many more electronic solutions.

          Irrespective of that the mindset of “paper prevails over other solutions” is still there in society. Attack of Covid-19 literally pushed the society towards digitalization in mindset too and actually understanding that tools and solutions required for remote business handing and employment are already there, now we only need to understand what would be the procedures to correctly implement those in real time and every day, because:

          • the old processes employees and employers are used to, do not work anymore;
          • both parties – employees and employers lack clarity on how to manage work with no stress or at least at proportionate stress level;
          • the remote work requires new skills not only for employees but also for management. How about control over employee work, what are the ways to manage it if all the team is not in one room;
          • no matter how digitally developed is the country each individual is though on different level of development in this respect, and this becomes true challenge when it comes to day-to-day remote work and cooperation;
          • and last but not least – the employers have invested in tools and equipment within on prems concept, whereas remote work needs different type of investment, more developed tools and IT security guarantees.

          This means that each company needs an actual transformation plan irrespective of the business it operates in. The digitalization is inevitable, it is a rational optimization of resources used, development of new skills and taking each employee on a whole new level of professional performance – individually and team wise. For companies digitalization increases competitiveness and readiness to unexpected circumstances and sustainability of business operation.

          So summarizing all the aspects analyzed during this article, Covid-19 has made people think not only, what is actual value of the employment and how one can concurrently protect employees and its business, but also how much of processes we can transform in an e-approach immediately and where we still need know-how and investment.
          Transforming into a Gig economy requires much more than overnight meditation with one thought – this shall pass. It is a new way of living.

          On March 31, 2020 the details of emergency measures where shared in a press conference and the scheme was published simultaneously. This memo sets out the main lines of the NOW scheme.

          Loss of turnover

          Under the NOW scheme, employers can apply for an allowance for labour costs if they expect a loss of turnover of at least 20%. The loss of turnover of at least 20% must occur over a three-month period starting on the first day of the months March, April or May 2020. It must always relate to a consecutive period of three months.

          The turnover is compared with 25% of the turnover from January to December 2019.

          The loss of turnover is determined at group level. If a group as a whole has a loss of turnover of less than 20%, no compensation will be paid to any individual parts of that group that are still inactive. Net turnover is taken as the net turnover, i.e. the income from the supply of goods and services from the business of the legal entity less discounts and the like and tax levied on the turnover.

          Wages and salaries

          The employer must pay the wages to the employees in full, but can apply to the UWV (social security insurer for employees) for an allowance for labour costs. On the other hand, the employee must also be fully available to perform work.

          The NOW scheme also covers employees with employees with a flexible contract insofar as they continue to be employed and receive wages from the employer during the subsidy period. The wage bill of all employees with a social security wage (virtually all) are eligible for the subsidy. These are, for example, employees with a so-called fictitious employment contract for employee insurance, but not voluntarily insured persons.

          Wages up to € 9,538 gross per month are considered, the amount surpassing the same is not considered for the subsidy. Additional charges and costs such as employer contributions and employee contributions to pension and the accrual of holiday allowance are also compensated. A lump-sum surcharge for employer charges of 30% applies.

          Advance payment

           The advance payment provided under the NOW is, in principle, based on the wage bill for the January 2020 return period. If there are no wage data for January 2020, the UWV will assume November 2019. If there are no data for this period either, no subsidy can be granted.

          If the wage bill for the months March-April-May is lower, the amount of the subsidy will be reduced by 90% of the amount by which the wage bill fell. The settlement is an incentive to keep employees employed as much as possible for the hours they worked before the severe drop in turnover.

          Calculation

          The amount of the allowance for wage costs depends on the drop in turnover and amounts to a maximum of 90% of the wage bill. For example: If 100% of the turnover is lost, the allowance amounts to 90% of the wage and salary bill of the employer and if 50% of the turnover is lost, the allowance amounts to 45% of the wage and salary bill of the employer.

          Extension of the arrangement

          It was previously announced that the period of the allowance, which is 3 months, may be extended once for a further period of 3 months. The Cabinet now announces that this extension has not yet been decided; it will be decided before 1 June 2020, so that any second tranche will be in line with the first application period ending on 31 May 2020. In case of extension, further conditions may be added to the scheme.

          Prohibition of dismissal

          When applying on the grounds of the NOW, the employer undertakes in advance not to apply for dismissal on the grounds of business economics for his employees during the period for which the allowance is received. The employer is therefore expected not to apply to the UWV for permission to terminate an employment contract on the grounds of business economics in the period from 18 March to 31 May 2020 inclusive. The prohibition on dismissal does not apply to dismissal applications submitted to the UWV in the period from 1 March to 17 March 2020.

          If a request for dismissal is nevertheless made and this request is not withdrawn (or not withdrawn on time), a correction will be made when the subsidy is determined. When the subsidy is determined, the wages of the employees for whom dismissal has been requested will be determined. This wage is then increased by 50%. This wage plus the 50% increase is deducted from the total wage sum on which the final amount of the subsidy is based.

          Submitting the request

          The UWV will be charged with processing the application. The applications are expected to be submitted on 6 April next. The first advance payments will be made within 2 to 4 weeks. This advance payment will in any case amount to 80% of the grant.

          Questo articolo si propone di illustrare le nuove norme in materia di parità di genere introdotte dal RDL 6/2019 applicabili a tutte le tipologie di imprese (indipendentemente dal numero di dipendenti), ed in particolare alle imprese che occupino almeno 50 dipendenti.

          La principale novità in questo senso consiste in un obbligo a carico delle aziende con almeno 50 dipendenti di attuare un Piano che promuova la parità di trattamento, in conformità alle disposizioni degli articoli 45 e seguenti della LOIEMH.

          Per quanto riguarda i contenuti e le modalità di attuazione del Piano di Parità nelle aziende, segnaliamo le seguenti novità:

          • I temi ed i contenuti minimi che devono essere inclusi nel singolo Piano di Parità sono indicati in modo esaustivo.
          • E’ introdotta un’analisi della sotto-rappresentazione femminile in azienda quale tema da includere nel Piano.
          • La valutazione che le imprese devono compiere in fase di elaborazione del Piano di Parità deve essere oggetto di negoziazione con il rappresentante legale dei lavoratori.
          • È istituito un Registro dei Piano di Parità delle imprese, nel quale vanno iscritti tutti i Piani di Parità adottato dalle imprese, indipendentemente dal numero di lavoratori occupati.

          L’RDL 6/2019 introduce peraltro una nuova formulazione dell’articolo 28 dello Statuto dei Lavoratori, la quale sancisce l’obbligo per le imprese di conformarsi al principio della parità retributiva tra uomini e donne, stabilendo una serie di misure e obblighi a carico delle imprese, al fine di garantire l’effettivo rispetto della parità retributiva.

          In particolare, le nuove misure inserite nell’articolo 28 dello Statuto sono le seguenti:

          • Il testo definisce la nozione di “lavoro di pari valore“, al fine di promuovere un criterio unico ed eliminare ogni dubbio al riguardo.
          • Le imprese sono tenute a mantenere un Registro delle Retribuzioni, riportando i valori medi delle retribuzioni, delle componenti retributive supplementari e delle percezioni extra-salariali del proprio personale, differenziando i dati per genere e distribuendoli per gruppi professionali, categorie professionali o posizioni di lavoro di pari valore.
          • Il Registro delle Retribuzioni dovrà essere reso accessibile al rappresentante legale dei lavoratori.
          • Nelle imprese che occupano almeno 50 lavoratori con una retribuzione media relativa ai lavoratori di un genere superiore di almeno il 25% rispetto a quella dell’altro, è necessario inserire nel Registro delle Retribuzioni una motivazione di tale disparità, certificando che essa è dovuta a ragioni diverse dal genere dei lavoratori.

          L’inosservanza degli obblighi in materia di parità e, in particolare, di quelli attinenti al Piano di Parità ed alla parità retributiva tra uomini e donne, può comportare l’applicazione di pesanti sanzioni da parte dell’Ispettorato del Lavoro e della “Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social”.

          On 28 May 2019 the Dutch Parliament adopted new employment legislation: The Balanced Labour Market Act (‘Wet Arbeidsmarkt in Balans’), hereinafter the WAB. The most important changes are discussed below.

          New cumulation ground for dismissal

          The legislation introduces a new ground for dismissal. This makes it a bit easier for employers to dismiss employees. Dismissal will also be possible if there is a sum of circumstances, the so-called cumulation ground. Now the employer must fully comply with 1 of the 8 grounds for dismissal. This new ground gives the court the opportunity to combine circumstances. The employee can receive an extra half transitional allowance (on top of the current statutory transitional allowance) if the cumulation ground is used for the dismissal.

          Severance: Transitional allowance

          The new act arranges that employees will have the right to a transitional allowance immediately from the first start of the employment contract, instead of only after two years.

          The accrual of transitional allowance is reduced in case of long-term employment. The accrual for everyone, regardless of the age of the employee, is one third of a monthly salary.

          There will be a scheme for small employers to compensate the transitional allowance if they have to end their business due to retirement or illness.

          Extending the scope of the chain of employment agreements

          The current period after which successive fixed-term employment contracts legally change into an employment contract for an indefinite period is two years. The WAB broadens the succession of temporary contracts. Under the WAB it will still be possible to enter into a maximum of three temporary contracts. The maximum period of fixed-term contracts will be extended to three years. This chain of successive fixed-term employment contracts can be broken by an interruption period of six months.

          It is possible to shorten the interruption period between a chain of fixed-term contracts in a Collective Bargaining Agreement from six to three months if there is recurring temporary work that can be done for a maximum of nine months a year.

          An exception to the chain provision will be made for temporary workers in primary education who replace employees who became ill.

          Call agreement

          A new definition is introduced in Article 7: 628a paragraph 9 of the Dutch Civil Code: the ‘call agreement’. In call agreements the number of working hours per period and the salary are not established upfront but can vary depending on for example the amount of work available. Under the WAB an employee must be called by the employer at least four days in advance. If the employer does not follow this regulation, the employee is not obligated to come in for work. Call workers retain the right to wages for the period for which they were called if the work is cancelled less than four days in advance. The employer is obliged to offer the call worker an employment contract after a year for the average number of hours that he has worked in the previous twelve months. In Collective Bargaining Agreements alternative arrangements can be made under certain conditions.

          Payrolling

          Payroll employees will receive the same legal position and primary and secondary employment conditions as employees who are employed by the employer.

          Payroll employees are also entitled to an ‘adequate’ pension scheme.

          Unemployment benefit premium differentiation

          In order to make employment contracts for an indefinite period of time more attractive for employers, the WAB arranges for an unemployment benefit premium differentiation between permanent and temporary contracts. A lower premium will apply for employment contracts for an indefinite period of time and a higher premium for fixed-term employment contracts.

          Commencing date

          The intended commencing date of the WAB is 1 January 2020. The right to an adequate pension scheme for payrolling starts on 1 January 2021.

          The author of this post is Regine de Wit.

          10 practical aspects to consider for an adequate timing

          Meanwhile similar legal standards apply in most industrialized countries if an employment relationship shall be terminated; however, in every jurisdiction some specifics still need to be considered. The following ten aspects may be a first general guideline for the termination of an employment contract in Germany, in particular regarding its timing.

          1. In some cases notice needs to be given within a two-week period

          In case of gross misconduct an employer may be entitled to terminate an employment relationship forthwith. However, if notice of termination is not served to the employee within two weeks after acknowledgement of the respective facts, this right is forfeited.

          1. Notice has to be given in writing

          The notice has to be signed by the legal representative of the employer and delivered to the employee. Neither a transmission by facsimile nor an email with a scanned copy is sufficient. If the representative is not on site, timing may become an essential aspect of the termination process.

          1. Ordinary dismissal may be prohibited by a collective bargaining agreement

          Collective bargaining agreements often provide a ban on ordinary dismissal under certain circumstances (e.g. based on the age of the employee). A careful assessment of all applicable collective bargaining agreements before a termination is therefore indispensable.

          1. Insufficient information of the works councils may lead to an invalid termination

          The establishment of a works council is not mandatory in Germany. However, if it is established, it needs to be notified and heard before every termination of an employment contract. The notification must contain a sufficient description of the grounds for the termination, otherwise the termination may be deemed invalid. Having been notified, the works council has one week (in some cases: three days) to object. Any termination before such term without consent of the works council would be deemed invalid as well. Timing may therefore become again an essential aspect of the termination process.

          1. General dismissal protection is related to seniority and size of the establishment

          General dismissal protection is basically applicable in establishments with more than 10 employees. Exceptions may apply in favour of those employees whose employment relationships commenced already before 1st January 2004. In addition, the respective employee needs to have at least a seniority of six month. If these criteria are met, the termination has to be justified by operational reasons, misconduct or personal incapacity as set out in the Dismissal Protection Act.

          1. Some terminations may need prior permission

          Irrespective of the application of the afore mentioned Dismissal Protection Act some kind of terminations (e.g. employees on parental leave) may need a special permission of the works council, the Labour Court or the respective public authority as applicable. These procedures may last from some days up to two years.

          1. There is no general claim for severance payment in case of an unfair dismissal

          Aside from those agreed in termination agreements there is no general claim for severance payment in case of an unfair dismissal. In general, the statutory remedy will only be reinstatement and back pay. Only under certain circumstances each party may apply for the termination of the employment relationship and a severance payment in front of the Labour Court. However, in most of the cases parties end up in a voluntary termination agreement.

          1. Non-competes may lead to extensive payments and cannot be withdrawn forthwith unilaterally without cause

          A binding covenant to non-compete leads to a compensation payment of at least 50 % of the former salary for every month of its duration. Even in case of a justified termination it may only be terminated with a notice period of one year. However, both parties may agree upon its immediate suspension in a termination agreement.

          1. Any termination agreement has to be in written form as well

          Also a termination agreement needs to fulfil the same formal requirements as set out already above under point 2. Again, if the representative is not on site, timing may become an essential aspect of the bargaining process.

          1. The forfeiture clause of a termination agreement may not cover all claims 

          Termination agreements often contain general forfeiture clauses at their end, covering also those potential claims which have not been explicitly mentioned or identified by the parties. However, some claims (e.g. pension claims) may not be covered by such a (general) forfeiture clause.

          Please note that these ten aspects contain general information only. Further details as well as possible exceptions therefore need to be checked on a case-by-case basis by a professional advisor.

           

          Tha author of this post is Alexander Lentz

          L’imprenditore che intenda concentrarsi esclusivamente sul proprio core business ha la possibilità di ricorrere ad altri imprenditori, a cui affidare la realizzazione di tutte quelle opere e di quei servizi comunque necessari per la gestione dell’impresa.

          Il termine tecnico che si utilizza per definire un tale modus operandi è quello di “esternalizzazione” di parte dell’attività imprenditoriale e, solitamente, l’accordo che regola tale tipologia di collaborazione è un contratto di appalto, vale a dire il contratto con il quale una parte si impegna a compiere un’opera o un servizio a favore di un’altra e verso un corrispettivo in denaro.

          Esempio di contratto di appalto d’opera potrebbe essere il contratto con il quale un’impresa edile si obbliga a costruire un palazzo per una società immobiliare; esempio di appalto di servizi potrebbe essere il contratto che si stipula con un’impresa di pulizie per la pulizia del proprio stabile.

          L’appalto ha per oggetto una prestazione di “fare” nell’ambito della quale un soggetto, detto appaltatore, si impegna a svolgere un’attività determinata, fornendo ed organizzando i mezzi necessari e gestendo la realizzazione a proprio rischio; è poi necessario che l’attività sia organizzata in forma di impresa e che quindi l’appaltatore sia, esso stesso, un imprenditore.

          In Italia lo strumento dell’appalto ha sempre avuto grande diffusione ed utilizzo e da sempre rappresenta lo strumento privilegiato per esternalizzare attività poco remunerative nell’ambito di realtà imprenditoriali complesse: obiettivo di chi ricorre all’appalto è quello di realizzare efficienza in termini di risorse, sia economiche (riduzione dei costi) che materiali (riduzione di personale e delle responsabilità connesse alla sua gestione).

          Quanto sopra vale anche per gli imprenditori esteri che gestiscono o decidono di avviare un’attività in Italia: l’appalto rappresenta un ottimo strumento per delegare ad altri soggetti, in loco e con una specifica expertise in materia, la gestione di problematiche complesse quali: l’ottenimento di autorizzazioni pubbliche, l’approvvigionamento di particolari materie prime, il reclutamento sul territorio di risorse umane qualificate.

          L’esternalizzazione della attività non è un fenomeno omogeneo e le esigenze che spesso si presentano in concreto sono suscettibili di prestarsi anche a differenti soluzioni, a seconda dell’oggetto della prestazione, della tipologia e delle caratteristiche del committente o della particolare natura degli interessi coinvolti.

          Proprio in virtù delle suddette particolarità molto spesso, in luogo del contratto di appalto, l’imprenditore fa ricorso al contratto di subfornitura.

          Con il contratto di subfornitura un imprenditore si impegna a effettuare, per conto di una impresa committente, lavorazioni su prodotti semilavorati o su materie prime forniti dalla committente medesima, o si impegna a fornire all’impresa prodotti o servizi destinati ad essere incorporati o comunque ad essere utilizzati nell’ambito dell’attività economica del committente o nella produzione di un bene complesso, in conformità a progetti esecutivi, conoscenze tecniche e tecnologiche, modelli o prototipi forniti dall’impresa committente.

          Sintetizzando e forse banalizzando fiorenti dibattiti dottrinali e giurisprudenziali, potremmo dire che molto spesso la differenza tra un appalto di servizi e la “subfornitura” consiste nel fatto che in caso di subfornitura le attività oggetto del contratto vengono svolte su materiali del committente e/o consistono nella realizzazione di beni o servizi funzionali al processo produttivo del committente; in ogni caso, la subfornitura comporta la “dipendenza tecnologica” (ed anche economica) del subfornitore nei confronti del committente.

          Proprio il decentramento e la dissociazione che l’esternalizzazione di processi e attività realizza tra il “gestore” dell’attività esternalizzata ed il fruitore finale della stessa, suscita da sempre grande attenzione da parte del legislatore italiano.

          Attenzione finalizzata a tutelare soprattutto i dipendenti coinvolti nell’attività esternalizzata in caso di eventi nefasti idonei a privarli di garanzie legali di cui, invece, possono continuare a godere i dipendenti dell’appaltante committente (pensiamo ad esempio alla sofferenza finanziaria dell’appaltatore/subfornitore, o addirittura al suo coinvolgimento in procedure concorsuali, da cui derivi il mancato pagamento di retribuzioni e contributi).

          Per tali ragioni, ormai a far data dal 2003, il legislatore italiano ha introdotto un oneroso regime di solidarietà tra committente e appaltatore, nonché con ciascuno degli eventuali subappaltatori che, entro il limite di due anni dalla cessazione dell’appalto, sono obbligati in solido a corrispondere ai lavoratori i trattamenti retributivi, comprese le quote di trattamento di fine rapporto, nonché i contributi previdenziali e i premi assicurativi dovuti in relazione al periodo di esecuzione del contratto di appalto.

          Sino al mese di dicembre del 2017 la giurisprudenza di merito era consolidata nel ritenere che il regime della responsabilità solidale fosse applicabile esclusivamente all’appalto di servizi e non alla subfornitura. Circostanza questa che rendeva il ricorso alla subfornitura potenzialmente meno oneroso per il committente.

          Con sentenza n. 254 del 6 dicembre scorso, tuttavia, la prospettiva è stata completamente ribaltata dalla Corte Costituzionale che chiamata a pronunciarsi in materia ha stabilito l’applicazione estensiva del principio della responsabilità solidale anche tra committente e subfornitore.

          La sentenza parte dall’analisi della nota questione giurisprudenziale circa la configurazione giuridica del contratto di subfornitura e, in particolare, circa l’autonomia o meno del contratto di fornitura rispetto al contratto di appalto.

          Senza entrare nel merito del dibattito giurisprudenziale esistente, la Corte Costituzionale sostiene che, al di là dell’orientamento seguito quanto all’assimilazione o meno della subfornitura al contratto di appalto, è possibile operare l’estensione della responsabilità del committente/appaltatore ai crediti di lavoro dei dipendenti del subfornitore.

          Ciò in quanto l’introduzione della norma sulla responsabilità solidale in ipotesi di appalto, non può giustificare l’esclusione della medesima garanzia nei confronti dei dipendenti del subfornitore, atteso che la tutela del soggetto che assicura un’attività lavorativa indiretta non può non estendersi a tutti i livelli di decentramento.

          Sulla base di tali considerazioni, dunque, il principio della responsabilità solidale va correttamente interpretato nel senso che il committente/appaltatore è obbligato in solido (anche) con il subfornitore, relativamente ai crediti lavorativi, contributivi e assicurativi dei dipendenti di questi, al pari quindi di quanto lo è verso i dipendenti del subappaltatore.

          In sostanza il committente risponde direttamente, salvo successiva rivalsa, per le rivendicazioni economiche avanzate dai dipendenti dell’appaltatore, del subappaltatore e del subfornitore e di tutti i lavoratori che dovessero essere stati utilizzati nell’attività esternalizzata in relazione a: i) crediti retributivi maturati durante il periodo di correlazione tra committente ed impresa che ha eseguito i lavori, ivi compresi, “pro – quota”, quelli relativi al trattamento di fine rapporto; e ii) contributi previdenziali e premi assicurativi dovuti per il periodo di esecuzione della prestazione.

          Il lavoratore può chiedere direttamente al committente il pagamento di quanto maturato nei confronti del proprio datore. Il committente, chiamato in giudizio, non può mai chiedere l’escussione del coobbligato in solido: deve pagare salva l’azione di regresso.

          Il committente quindi, nonostante l’esigenza iniziale fosse quella di fare efficienza e ridurre costi, può trovarsi esposto ad un rischio economico molto maggiore rispetto al costo risparmiato, soprattutto se le rivendicazioni economiche riguardano situazioni non controllabili a priori: facciamo riferimento ad esempio, all’eventuale personale utilizzato “in maniera irregolare” dall’appaltatore/subfornitore, oppure alle rivendicazioni connesse allo svolgimento di mansioni superiori, od anche alla richiesta di lavoro straordinario al di fuori dei parametri di legge.

          Esistono naturalmente sistemi e meccanismi idonei a contenere il rischio o, comunque, idonei a garantire al committente maggiore controllo sul corretto funzionamento della filiera esternalizzata.

          Tra questi, ad esempio, alla possibilità di prevedere contrattualmente strumenti di tutela economica quali fideiussioni e manleve.

          Ma esiste anche la possibilità di implementare, sempre nel contratto, un adeguato sistema di controllo sulla corretta gestione del personale nonché sull’erogazione di retribuzioni, contributi e premi assicurativi.

          Alla luce di quanto sopra, concludiamo individuando nella figura del consulente esperto in materia di diritto del lavoro il miglior supporto per l’imprenditore che intenda avventurarsi in maniera consapevole e sicura in un processo di esternalizzazione.

          L’autore di questo articolo è Domenica Cotroneo.

          Il distacco transnazionale di lavoratori è quel meccanismo attraverso cui le imprese di uno Stato membro prestano servizi in un altro Stato membro inviando direttamente i propri dipendenti nel territorio di quest’ultimo.

          Nel corso degli ultimi 20 anni tale fenomeno è cresciuto in maniera rilevante a livello europeo, soprattutto a seguito dell’ingresso nell’Unione dei Paesi dell’est, che avevano – e in parte continuano ad avere – un costo del lavoro sensibilmente più basso di quello degli altri Stati membri.

          Il fenomeno è stato quindi oggetto di diversi interventi del legislatore europeo e di quelli nazionali, nonché di alcune rilevanti decisioni della Corte di Giustizia. Esso si pone infatti in relazione con diversi diritti fondamentali riconosciuti dall’Unione e richiede un equilibrato bilanciamento degli interessi in gioco.

          Occorre garantire le libertà di circolazione di lavoratori,  capitali e merci e, in particolare, la libera prestazione dei servizi (art. 56 TFUE), salvaguardando al contempo la leale concorrenza tra le imprese e la tutela dei lavoratori. Il legislatore comunitario intervenne sul tema con la Direttiva 96/71/CE (attuata in Italia col D. Lgs. 72/2000), poi integrata dalla Direttiva 2014/67/UE (attuata in Italia col D. Lgs. 136/2016).

          Il legislatore europeo e quello nazionale perseguono con le citate disposizioni due principali obiettivi:

          – contrastare i distacchi fittizi attraverso società di comodo, le cosiddette letterbox company, garantendo equilibrio concorrenziale a livello europeo;

          – garantire uniformità di trattamento e di tutela ai lavoratori coinvolti, impedendo fenomeni di ‘dumping sociale’.

          Per raggiungere questi obiettivi viene rafforzato il sistema di cooperazione amministrativa tra le diverse autorità ispettive nazionali,  vengono individuati criteri predefiniti per la valutazione dell’autenticità del distacco e vengono stabilite condizioni minime da garantire ai lavoratori.

          Per valutare l’autenticità del distacco, l’art. 4 della direttiva 2014/67/UE (recepito nell’art. 3 della legge italiana) indica alcune caratteristiche da prendere in considerazione con riferimento alle imprese coinvolte e ai lavoratori distaccati.

          Per le imprese sono considerati rilevanti i seguenti elementi:

          1. a) il luogo in cui l’impresa ha la propria sede legale e amministrativa, utilizza uffici, paga imposte e contributi previdenziali ed è iscritta alla camera di commercio;
          2. b) il luogo in cui i lavoratori sono assunti e quello da cui sono distaccati;
          3. c) la legge applicabile ai contratti stipulati dall’impresa con i suoi lavoratori e con i suoi clienti;
          4. d) il luogo in cui l’impresa esercita la propria attività economica principale e in cui è occupato il suo personale amministrativo;
          5. e) il numero dei contratti eseguiti o l’ammontare del fatturato realizzato dall’impresa nello Stato membro di stabilimento, tenendo conto della specificità delle piccole e medie imprese e di quelle di nuova costituzione.

          Per i lavoratori vengono prese in considerazione queste circostanze:

          1. a) lo svolgimento dell’attività lavorativa per un periodo di tempo limitato in un altro Stato membro;
          2. b) la data di inizio del distacco;
          3. c) l’esercizio abituale dell’attività lavorativa nello Stato di provenienza;
          4. d) il ritorno a prestare attività lavorativa nello Stato cui è stato distaccato;
          5. e) la natura e le modalità di svolgimento dell’attività;
          6. f) il rimborso da parte del datore di lavoro distaccante delle spese di viaggio, vitto o alloggio  e le modalità di pagamento;
          7. g) eventuali periodi precedenti in cui la medesima attività è stata svolta dallo stesso o da un altro lavoratore distaccato.

          Tutte queste circostanze devono essere considerate nel loro complesso, nessuna è di per sé decisiva e spetta alle autorità nazionali la valutazione finale dell’autenticità o meno del distacco.

          L’eventuale accertamento di un distacco fittizio determina rilevanti sanzioni amministrative a carico sia dell’impresa distaccante che di quella utilizzatrice, nonché la loro corresponsabilità per i crediti dei lavoratori.

          Il legislatore italiano ha inoltre rafforzato tale previsione: in simmetria con quanto previsto per i casi di intermediazione illecita di mano d’opera, ha infatti stabilito che, se il distacco non risulta autentico, “il lavoratore è considerato a tutti gli effetti alle dipendenze del soggetto che ne ha utilizzato la prestazione” (art. 3 legge italiana).

          Ai fini della tutela dei lavoratori e dell’equilibrio concorrenziale, l’art. 3 della direttiva 96/71/CE (art. 4 della legge italiana) stabilisce che, qualunque sia la legislazione applicabile al rapporto di lavoro, gli Stati membri devono far sì che ai lavoratori distaccati sul loro territorio siano garantite, per il periodo del distacco, condizioni di lavoro analoghe a quelle dei lavoratori nazionali. In particolare, i lavoratori distaccati devono godere di un trattamento equivalente in relazione a:

          – periodi massimi di lavoro e minimi di riposo;

          – durata minima delle ferie annuali retribuite;

          – tariffe minime salariali;

          – sicurezza e salute sul lavoro;

          – tutela per lavoratrici madri, bambini e giovani;

          – parità di trattamento uomo/donna e principi di non discriminazione.

          Dal punto di vista pratico, l’aspetto di più complessa valutazione riguarda le tariffe minime salariali. Nei diversi paesi dell’Unione esse sono infatti definite in maniera diversa, da fonti diverse (legge/fonti amministrative/contratti collettivi) e sono composte da molte voci, non sempre sovrapponibili.

          D’altro canto, gli aspetti economici sono determinanti per imprese e lavoratori per valutare l’opportunità e la convenienza del distacco.

          Proprio per queste ragioni, la Corte di Giustizia ha chiarito che il confronto tra le diverse tariffe nazionali deve essere condotto confrontando l’importo complessivo e non le singole voci salariali. La Corte ha inoltre precisato che il confronto deve essere limitato alle voci retributive in senso stretto, cioè in diretta relazione con la prestazione, escludendo per esempio i premi supplementari. Infine la giurisprudenza comunitaria ha chiarito che le voci retributive da prendere in considerazione devono essere accessibili e chiare per il datore di lavoro distaccante.

          Da ultimo le disposizioni europee impongono agli Stati membri di consentire ai lavoratori distaccati sul loro territorio l’accesso agli strumenti di tutela, anche giudiziaria, predisposti per i lavoratori nazionali.

          A questo fine, in Italia si è esplicitamente prevista la facoltà, per i lavoratori distaccati, di agire sia in sede amministrativa che giudiziale (art. 5 legge italiana).

          In Spagna il licenziamento viene classificato individuale o collettivo, a seconda del numero di lavoratori assoggettati a tale misura.

          L’articolo 51 dello Statuto dei Lavoratori considera “licenziamento collettivo” l’estinzione del rapporto di lavoro causata da motivazioni economiche, tecniche, organizzative o di produzione quando, nel periodo di novanta giorni, coinvolga: (i) almeno dieci lavoratori di un’impresa con meno di 100 dipendenti; (ii) il dieci per cento dei lavoratori in una impresa che abbia tra cento e trecento dipendenti; (iii) trenta lavoratori nelle imprese con più di trecento dipendenti.

          Il licenziamento potrà essere impugnato in sede giudiziale, entro 20 giorni lavorativi e potrà essere dichiarato legittimo (procedente), illegittimo (improcedente) o nullo.

          Il licenziamento si considera legittimo quando è confermato l’inadempimento da parte del lavoratore contestato dall’imprenditore nella comunicazione del licenziamento e sono stati soddisfatti i requisiti formali, quali (i) la comunicazione per iscritto al lavoratore; (ii) una sufficiente descrizione dei fatti che hanno determinato il licenziamento e (iii) l’indicazione della data a partire della quale il licenziamento sarà efficace.

          Sarà dichiarato illegittimo il licenziamento privo dei requisiti citati nel paragrafo precedente.

          Il licenziamento è nullo nei seguenti casi: (i) violazione dei diritti fondamentali o libertà pubblica; (ii) il lavoratore è una vittima di violenza di genere; (iii) salvo che si dimostri la giusta causa, nei casi di: lavoratrici incinte, con permesso di maternità, paternità o allattamento, o con riduzione della giornata lavorativa per curare un minore di dodici anni o una persona con una incapacità fisica, psichica o sensoriale.

          Nel caso in cui il licenziamento sia dichiarato illegittimo, l’imprenditore entro cinque giorni dovrà scegliere se reintegrare il lavoratore nel posto di lavoro (e pagargli le mensilità trascorse tra il licenziamento e la notificazione della sentenza, i cosiddetti salarios de tramitación) oppure pagargli l’indennità, il cui importo dipende dalla durata del rapporto, come si analizzerà di seguito. Nel caso in cui il lavoratore licenziato sia un rappresentante sindacale, la scelta tra le due opzioni spetterà al lavoratore e non all’imprenditore.

          Se il licenziamento è dichiarato nullo, l’imprenditore avrà l’obbligo di reintegrare il lavoratore nel posto di lavoro e potrà essere condannato al risarcimento dei danni assieme al pagamento delle mensilità trascorse tra il licenziamento e la notifica della sentenza.

          Come accennato in precedenza, l’indennità dovuta al lavoratore (alternativa al reintegro per i licenziamenti illegittimi) dipende dal momento in cui è iniziato il rapporto di lavoro.

          L’indennità da pagare nel caso del licenziamento di un lavoratore assunto dopo il 12 febbraio 2012, sarà pari a 33 giorni di retribuzione per ogni anno lavorato.

          Nel caso in cui il lavoratore licenziato sia stato assunto prima del 12 febbraio 2012, l’indennità verrà calcolata come segue:

          • per il periodo trascorso tra la firma del contratto e il 12 febbraio 2012, l’indennità è pari a 45 giorni di retribuzione per ogni anno di rapporto;
          • sarà pari a 33 giorni di retribuzione per ogni anno lavorato dopo il 12 febbraio 2012.

          In ogni caso l’indennità non potrà ammontare a più di 720 giorni di retribuzione, salvo il caso in cui, dal calcolo dell’indennità del periodo precedente il 12 febbraio 2012, risultasse un numero di giorni superiore a 720, nel quale l’indennità non potrà essere superiore a quarantadue mensilità.

          Inoltre è importante ricordare che l’indennità in caso di licenziamento è esente da qualunque imposta fino a 180.000 euro. Per la cifra superiore, la tassazione sarà parificata ai redditi di lavoro, con una riduzione del 30% nel caso di rapporto di lavoro terminato da almeno due anni.

          Caroline Barbe

          Aree di attività

          • Lavoro
          Contatta Caroline
          Latvia - Legalmondo

          Latvia – Establishing a company
          • Diritto societario
          • Lettonia

          Scrivi a Caroline





            Leggi la privacy policy di Legalmondo.
            Questo sito è protetto da reCAPTCHA e si applicano le Norme sulla privacy e i Termini di servizio di Google.

            Spagna, Contratto collettivo di lavoro e riduzione dei benefici

            31 Gennaio 2018

            • Spagna
            • Lavoro

            Today during Covid–19 circumstances Gig economy approach has become more necessity rather than theoretical possibility. But still transformation of Latvian business and employment market does not run so smooth. Why so?

            At the end of year 2019 the State Labour Inspectorate of Latvia in cooperation with private partners released results of a research on new forms of employment presence and potential in Latvia (http://www.vdi.gov.lv/files/jnf_gala_zinojums.pdf). The results of this research as well of other international researches are rather controversial as do not conform to the real situation in the country.

            Although the aforementioned researches claim that employers in Latvia are supporters of old-style employment and are not willing to change the practice, in fact the laws of Latvia in effect do not provide flexibility on the approach of employment.

            Covid-19 has badly hit a lot of economies, and actually highlighted the largest challenges – employers to save their business would like to pay less, whereas employees need flexibility as they are required to work remotely and combine their private and work lives.

            In this article an analysis of how general conditions of employment applicable today correspond to frame of main five aspects of a Gig economy will be provided.

            Employment “one to one” or “one to many”

            Gig economy considers that traditional employment has no longer place in our world. The employment should be available among one employer and many employees, many employers and many employees or one employee and many employers, thus employment being in each contractual relations part time, nevertheless all employees are jointly and severally liable for the result of work.

            Labour Law of Latvia keeps traditions of employment – one employer and one employee. Likewise part time work is permitted just in statutorily listed cases like to replace an employee in long term absence, in case of increase of the workload in the company, in emergency cases, and in certain areas like culture, sports, banking, education and diplomacy. Moreover, length of a fixed-term employment may not exceed 5 years in total (including extensions). As a result of this majority of employments are open ended.

            In order to solve the burden imposed by law, employers often use potential employees as external service providers based on a Service Agreement in this manner imitating self employment. Self employment for a payor is less expensive tax wise, which led authorities to introduce limiting measures for flexibility of entrepreneurs.
            In the Law on Personal Income Tax criteria of employment per se where introduced. Namely, an agreement with an individual can be deemed as contractual relationships subject to payment of salary and accordingly payroll if at least one of the following conditions has been ascertained:

            • the individual has economic dependence upon the party to whom he/she provides services;
            • lack of assumption of financial risks in the fulfilment of work or no liability in respect to lost debtor debts;
            • integration of the contracted individual into the company to which services are provided (e.g. existence of a work or recreational areas, a duty to observe internal rules of the company);
            • availability of holidays and paid leave in accordance with schedules of the company;
            • work shall be performed under management or control of the other contracting party – the customer, and the individual is deprived of possibility to involve in the service provision his/ her personnel or sub-contractors; or
            • the individual is not owner of the assets used while rendering services to the company.

            Respectively in case the State Revenue Service of Latvia (tax authority) detects presence of the criteria listed, it shall be entitled to reclassify the contractual relations of the seemingly independent parties into employment relations as a result of which remuneration paid to the individual would be subject to full payroll as any other salary gained on basis of Employment Agreement. The tax expense threshold the companies playing with by out of box employment results in significant difference:

            • payroll in case of employment – progressive personal income tax between 20% to 23% depending on the income (at certain level the annual income of an individual may though be subject to maximum rate of the personal income tax – 31.4%); social security contributions of 35.09%; majority of these expenses being on the employer’s shoulders; whereas
            • taxes applicable in case of self-employment – progressive personal income tax between 20% to 31.4% depending on the income; social security contributions of 32.15%, basis of these compulsory contributions being a freely chosen income; in this case if the contracted individual is a registered economic operator – the taxes are all his/her liability, whereas if the individual has not registered with tax authorities independent economic activity, the taxes shall be withheld at the moment of disbursement of the remuneration and paid into the State budget by the company contracting the individual.

            In circumstances of Covid–19 the traditional employment scenarios chosen by entrepreneurs due to rather strict statutory rules have heavily impacted operation of businesses as employers had to either dismiss their employees or let them in idleness with crisis management allowance established by the State as support during Covid–19.

            The outcome showed that applying of different type of “employment” structures, like contracting specialists on the need to basis or crowdsourcing of employees among numerous employers could have facilitated challenges the employers face today in many ways – provide availability of different specialists for the project/ time period required, limit expenses in respect to the employees whom the companies were forced to let in idleness, and alike, all of this still keeping the business running.

            Employment volatility as new formula for flexibility

            As described earlier, present requirements of the Labour Law of Latvia require employment relationships to be based on clear and sustainable rules thus ensuring predictable and long term support to the employees, both in terms of employment and social security.
            The strict approach is even more secured by strict statutory conditions and notice periods under which an employee can be dismissed:

            With a notice of immediate effect:

            • while performing work the employee has acted unlawfully and therefore has lost trust of the employer;
            • while performing the work employee is in a state of intoxication (e.g. alcohol, drugs, other); or
            • the employee is unable to perform the contracted work due to a state of health, and this is confirmed by a medical opinion;

            With a 10 days notice:

            • in case employee has without justifiable reason materially violated the contracted work order;
            • while performing the work the employee has acted contrary to good morals, and such action is incompatible with the continuation of the employment;
            • the employee has grossly violated work safety rules and endangered safety and health of other persons; or
            • due to temporary incapacity of the employee for work for more than 6 and up to 12 months;

            With a one month notice:

            • if the employee is in lack of sufficient professional skills to perform the contracted work;
            • an employee previously employed in the particular position has been reinstated to work;
            • in case of staff redundancy (presuming that employer will not hire immediately new employee in same position); or
            • in case the employer is being liquidated.

            Having seen the list of statutory conditions one would definitely agree that only few circumstances are of a regular character, meaning can be actually applied, whereas the rest are seldom met. Sure there is also available an exception out of this strongly established frame – to terminate employment without any specific reason if the employee and employer can reach a mutual agreement. However that may be a challenge – employees are not obliged to participate in negotiations with employers and can simply walk away.

            So how much of volatility and flexibility can be reached in such strongly fixed statutory frame?
            Practically not much.

            Accordingly under Covid–19 circumstances companies have applied staff redundancy condition more than ever, which may not have been necessary if employment structures would be more flexible. Part of employees today let in idleness have started to look for new job even before the actual dismissal, because perception of stability and predictability is the driving force. This actually showing that although employment of a periodical character would not provide long term income and social security, with this approach the employees of Latvia would have been more used and resistant to fast changing circumstances and periods of actual idleness (meaning also – had some savings).

            It appears that development of economy and business approaches runs on a speed of light, whereas statutory regulation does not manage to follow in those footsteps. The question is though do we need today law and regulation for each detail, if in practice changes come into our lives so fast. Maybe a better solution would be regulation on general principles and practically providing field of different approaches and solutions which would fit more each business segment and keep economy running also in such extraordinary circumstances as Covid-19.

            A close cooperation among numerous employers

            The Gig economy concept provides for presence of different types of cooperation among employers and employees, including crowdsourcing of personnel, sharing of working spaces, liaising business operations and sharing liability in respect to work performed.

            Under present requirements of employment and tax laws of Latvia having shared workforce is rather complicated. The statutory restrictions keep accountability of employers at a very high level thus at the end of the day the approach of traditional employment – “one employer and one employee” – on Latvian market appears to be the easiest. Likewise the strict statutory rules have developed certain culture also on the employee side – “I have one master” seems the most correct and secure way and any other solutions are simply out of discussion.

            As an example, it took years for the Latvian market to admit that employees can be also leased out. Due to long term difficulties with practical applicability of this concept and contractual split of liabilities between lessor and lessee in respect to the employee (being those days at full discretion of the contractual parties), not always being favourable for the employee, in year 2011 changes to the Labour Law were introduced. The amendments established precise definition on what a lease of employees is, the scope of liability and split of duties among the parties resulting therefrom. However not without creating new burdens.

            The statutory protection level of employees on the Latvian market has always been very high and same became applicable in case of lease of workforce. No doubt employees have to be protected; however employee lease is a slightly different way of employment and therefore the regulation in place is still not always compatible with differentiation of employment schemes possible. Last but not least, another aspect complicating applicability of lease of employees is that lease of workforce is set as licensable operation. The procedure to obtain license is complicate enough and involves preparation of paper loads, moreover under statutory requirements a license must be obtained even if the employees are leased between related companies. Thus benefits of this employment structure are certainly disputable.

            Crowdsourcing of employees is the next step; however theoretically possible already today. Individuals could become self employed specialists and enter into contracts with different companies, thus avoiding of the risk under Law on Personal Income Tax (described in this article earlier) to be recognized as employee of any of these companies provided of course that the individual assumes certain financial risks and does job with his/her own tools in majority. It can be considered also as mitigation of risks for both parties – the individual has certain financial and social security stability, as losing one customer would not heavily impact the individual’s income and life quality; whereas on the company’s side – expenses can be planned according to business plans and necessity. But not all individuals are today ready to work without strong supervision and assume full liability.

            Covid-19 showed that flexibility should be introduced. Moreover a plan on mitigation of risks and business sustainability are not just nice words, it is a must have plan to be updated constantly for the companies to be ready for extraordinary situations. Likewise stability the employees consider they have due to open ended “one master” employment are very volatile, the risks are always out there and nothing should be deemed as for granted.

            Nevertheless, pure employment issues are not the only challenges in the Gig economy approach.

            Remote and digital employment – the skills for the future

            Gig economy idea claims for flexibility and free choice of place to be, which for a traditional society like Latvia is a true challenge. Historically established traditions of frame and control in each aspect are still alive and part of the culture, whereas new generation which was born in years of independence already with their different view is considered as rebels.

            Labor Law of Latvia states ten mandatory terms and conditions to be included in each that Employment Agreements:

            • name, surname, ID number/ birth date, address of the employee; name, registration number, address of the employer;
            • starting date of the employment;
            • expected length of the employment (in case the agreement is concluded for certain period of time);
            • place of work and/ or in case employee will be required to perform work duties in different places, this must be clearly indicated;
            • the position employee is employed for indicating also code of the profession according to Classification of Professions established by the State;
            • amount of remuneration agreed and date of payment thereof;
            • contracted work time per day or per week;
            • length of the annual paid leave;
            • notice periods of the Employment Agreement;
            • indication to Collective Agreement and internal procedures and policies of the company applicable to the said employment.

            These mandatory aspects must be included in the agreement irrespective of whether they are statutorily fixed or can be changed upon agreement of the parties. Moreover, in case further changes in these terms shall be required the employer is obliged to inform the employee on that with one month prior written notice. Whereas coming into effect of the amendments to the agreement shall be absolutely subject to agreement between the parties or it triggers rights for the employer to unilaterally terminate employment (based though on staff reduction argument). Thus clear statement of where the work place is forms one of the key elements of the employment and changing it is rather inflexible.

            But it must be also taken into account that historically the concept of a fixed work place is connected to certain additional and consequential aspects. Namely, performance of work in the work place indicated in the Employment Agreement is solely subject to payment of salary and if applicable – compensation for overtime, as a general rule – not less than in amount of 100% of the hourly or daily salary rate set. Whereas work outside the work place established by the Employment Agreement may be deemed one of two business trip types and statutory rule is to provide additional protection to employees when they have to perform their work outside used place, especially if this is away from home:

            • Business trip A (komandējums) – a trip for a certain period of time based on order of the employer, to another location either inland or abroad to perform work duties or to promote qualification. This business trip is subject to compensation by the employer of daily allowance at least in the statutorily established amount, transportation and luggage expenses, expenses for accommodation, parking expenses, insurance expenses, participations fees at the events and alike;
            • Business trip B (darba brauciens) – work of the employee, if it takes place while travelling in accordance with the concluded Employment Agreement/ job description, inland or abroad, if the work involves regular/ systematic trips and change of location. This business trip is subject to compensation by the employer of slightly less expenses than in case of the business trip A – transportation expenses, expenses for accommodation, parking expenses, insurance expenses, expenses for transportation of luggage and few more.

            At the end of the day it is significant for the employer to precisely establish whether this is employment at another place as provides Employment Agreement or one of the business trips, accordingly precisely detecting which business trip type is applied as on this depends the overall amount of expenses to be compensated for the employee. And even more, certain aspects as for instance whether the employee can return to the residence place at the end of the day can decrease the amount of compensation to be paid. Accordingly applying of a fixed place of work may be financial wise more advantageous for the employer than flexibility of location for the employee.

            Another challenge of the work outside the office premises is compliance with work and health safety rules. When the work is performed in office premises of the employer it is mandatory obligation of the employer to ensure safe and healthy work conditions for its employees that including air conditions, work place suitable to spend hours in performing duties, safe and suitable tools for work and alike. Likewise the employer is in charge of running trainings for employees in this respect.

            Before extraordinary Covid–19 circumstances remote work was present in Latvia; however it was merely optional and applied in exceptional cases. Each case requiring ongoing remote work was true stress to employers, because the only way how to mitigate responsibility of the employer in respect to work safety was to conclude an additional agreement, with the employee probably stating that it has been initiative of the employee to work remotely and employer has agreed to that, thus the liability in respect to the work safety (and health) condition being transferred fully to the employee.

            Co-working spaces as a first change in culture had shaken not only the traditional approach of what a work place should be, but also the statutory frame. Due to various forms of employment becoming more and more relevant, including remote work, when the employee works at home or elsewhere outside the company, necessity for adaption of the work safety regulation to current trends became inevitable.
            As a result in October 2019 amendments to the Labour Protection Law were adopted.
            The new regulation coming into effect on July 1, 2020 finally declares what is a remote work, excluding therefrom work which is related to regular travelling. The new rules also establish obligation for the remote work performer to cooperate and exchange information with the employer in evaluation of work safety risks in the environment the employee is going to perform the work, if such circumstances can endanger or impact safety and health of the employee. The support in evaluation of the work safety must be provided by the employer irrespective of number of locations the employee would decide to perform the work at. And the employer will be responsible for the recordkeeping in respect to such work place evaluations. Nevertheless the part of law in respect to liability has not changed overall – the employer remains responsible for work and health safety at work of the persons employed/ contracted.

            It can be already today predicted that practicalities of the newly established approach will cause a lot of tricky and disputable situations. In a culture where employees are not keen to take responsibility, the new regulation will trigger employee claims to finance and ensure working conditions per individual choice and ambitions unless the employers will develop precise internal policies and procedures on conditions and equipment company deems sufficient and appropriate for the particular position in which the employee is employed.

            Hence the statutory regulation obviously needs more of development and tests in deployment before Gig economy approach can be deemed as fitting the culture and expectations of the society and aligning the statutory rules.

            For performance of the work duties especially information and communications technologies (ICT) are required

            And finally – under the Gig economy performance of work remotely would not be possible without proper gadgets – PCs, smartphones, tablets etc.

            When it comes to extraordinary circumstances like Covid-19 our very well digitalized society appears to be well skilled mainly in using digital social media, but as far as it concerns doing work, not yet so sophisticated. Lockdown discovered that a lot of inhabitants of Latvia have very poor ICT with limited functionality, low security level and even outdated. When using such equipment for performance of work duties the productivity is under question, cooperation of employees limps, reaching results takes longer time. But even more – data (especially confidential information) of the employer is endangered when poor ICT solutions are used.

            If we take a look at digitalization of Latvia, although not much internationally advertised, it is at a high level.
            Already today Latvian society has access to:

            • Latvia has one of the fastest internet connections in the world;
            • registration of corporate changes with the Company Register by submitting electronically signed documents (www.ur.gov.lv; www.latvija.lv);
            • complying with tax reporting requirements via electronic tool of the State Revenue Service, providing all communication with the tax authority also electronically (eds.vid.gov.lv);
            • signing majority of documents (public and private) electronically with secure digital signature and a time stamp (granted based on and connected with ID and passport of an individual) issued by LVRTC – one of the leading electronic communication service providers in Latvia (www.eparaksts.lv). This signature is recognized and can be combined with similar electronic signatures of other countries, e.g. Lithuania and Estonia. Even more – since some time mobile version of the secure electronic signature (and time stamp) is available, which means that any documents can be signed also in a smart phone;
            • notaries of Latvia perform their duties and execute documents electronically with secure digital signature and a time stamp;
            • State and majority of municipal authorities are welcoming electronic communication;

            and many more electronic solutions.

            Irrespective of that the mindset of “paper prevails over other solutions” is still there in society. Attack of Covid-19 literally pushed the society towards digitalization in mindset too and actually understanding that tools and solutions required for remote business handing and employment are already there, now we only need to understand what would be the procedures to correctly implement those in real time and every day, because:

            • the old processes employees and employers are used to, do not work anymore;
            • both parties – employees and employers lack clarity on how to manage work with no stress or at least at proportionate stress level;
            • the remote work requires new skills not only for employees but also for management. How about control over employee work, what are the ways to manage it if all the team is not in one room;
            • no matter how digitally developed is the country each individual is though on different level of development in this respect, and this becomes true challenge when it comes to day-to-day remote work and cooperation;
            • and last but not least – the employers have invested in tools and equipment within on prems concept, whereas remote work needs different type of investment, more developed tools and IT security guarantees.

            This means that each company needs an actual transformation plan irrespective of the business it operates in. The digitalization is inevitable, it is a rational optimization of resources used, development of new skills and taking each employee on a whole new level of professional performance – individually and team wise. For companies digitalization increases competitiveness and readiness to unexpected circumstances and sustainability of business operation.

            So summarizing all the aspects analyzed during this article, Covid-19 has made people think not only, what is actual value of the employment and how one can concurrently protect employees and its business, but also how much of processes we can transform in an e-approach immediately and where we still need know-how and investment.
            Transforming into a Gig economy requires much more than overnight meditation with one thought – this shall pass. It is a new way of living.

            On March 31, 2020 the details of emergency measures where shared in a press conference and the scheme was published simultaneously. This memo sets out the main lines of the NOW scheme.

            Loss of turnover

            Under the NOW scheme, employers can apply for an allowance for labour costs if they expect a loss of turnover of at least 20%. The loss of turnover of at least 20% must occur over a three-month period starting on the first day of the months March, April or May 2020. It must always relate to a consecutive period of three months.

            The turnover is compared with 25% of the turnover from January to December 2019.

            The loss of turnover is determined at group level. If a group as a whole has a loss of turnover of less than 20%, no compensation will be paid to any individual parts of that group that are still inactive. Net turnover is taken as the net turnover, i.e. the income from the supply of goods and services from the business of the legal entity less discounts and the like and tax levied on the turnover.

            Wages and salaries

            The employer must pay the wages to the employees in full, but can apply to the UWV (social security insurer for employees) for an allowance for labour costs. On the other hand, the employee must also be fully available to perform work.

            The NOW scheme also covers employees with employees with a flexible contract insofar as they continue to be employed and receive wages from the employer during the subsidy period. The wage bill of all employees with a social security wage (virtually all) are eligible for the subsidy. These are, for example, employees with a so-called fictitious employment contract for employee insurance, but not voluntarily insured persons.

            Wages up to € 9,538 gross per month are considered, the amount surpassing the same is not considered for the subsidy. Additional charges and costs such as employer contributions and employee contributions to pension and the accrual of holiday allowance are also compensated. A lump-sum surcharge for employer charges of 30% applies.

            Advance payment

             The advance payment provided under the NOW is, in principle, based on the wage bill for the January 2020 return period. If there are no wage data for January 2020, the UWV will assume November 2019. If there are no data for this period either, no subsidy can be granted.

            If the wage bill for the months March-April-May is lower, the amount of the subsidy will be reduced by 90% of the amount by which the wage bill fell. The settlement is an incentive to keep employees employed as much as possible for the hours they worked before the severe drop in turnover.

            Calculation

            The amount of the allowance for wage costs depends on the drop in turnover and amounts to a maximum of 90% of the wage bill. For example: If 100% of the turnover is lost, the allowance amounts to 90% of the wage and salary bill of the employer and if 50% of the turnover is lost, the allowance amounts to 45% of the wage and salary bill of the employer.

            Extension of the arrangement

            It was previously announced that the period of the allowance, which is 3 months, may be extended once for a further period of 3 months. The Cabinet now announces that this extension has not yet been decided; it will be decided before 1 June 2020, so that any second tranche will be in line with the first application period ending on 31 May 2020. In case of extension, further conditions may be added to the scheme.

            Prohibition of dismissal

            When applying on the grounds of the NOW, the employer undertakes in advance not to apply for dismissal on the grounds of business economics for his employees during the period for which the allowance is received. The employer is therefore expected not to apply to the UWV for permission to terminate an employment contract on the grounds of business economics in the period from 18 March to 31 May 2020 inclusive. The prohibition on dismissal does not apply to dismissal applications submitted to the UWV in the period from 1 March to 17 March 2020.

            If a request for dismissal is nevertheless made and this request is not withdrawn (or not withdrawn on time), a correction will be made when the subsidy is determined. When the subsidy is determined, the wages of the employees for whom dismissal has been requested will be determined. This wage is then increased by 50%. This wage plus the 50% increase is deducted from the total wage sum on which the final amount of the subsidy is based.

            Submitting the request

            The UWV will be charged with processing the application. The applications are expected to be submitted on 6 April next. The first advance payments will be made within 2 to 4 weeks. This advance payment will in any case amount to 80% of the grant.

            Questo articolo si propone di illustrare le nuove norme in materia di parità di genere introdotte dal RDL 6/2019 applicabili a tutte le tipologie di imprese (indipendentemente dal numero di dipendenti), ed in particolare alle imprese che occupino almeno 50 dipendenti.

            La principale novità in questo senso consiste in un obbligo a carico delle aziende con almeno 50 dipendenti di attuare un Piano che promuova la parità di trattamento, in conformità alle disposizioni degli articoli 45 e seguenti della LOIEMH.

            Per quanto riguarda i contenuti e le modalità di attuazione del Piano di Parità nelle aziende, segnaliamo le seguenti novità:

            • I temi ed i contenuti minimi che devono essere inclusi nel singolo Piano di Parità sono indicati in modo esaustivo.
            • E’ introdotta un’analisi della sotto-rappresentazione femminile in azienda quale tema da includere nel Piano.
            • La valutazione che le imprese devono compiere in fase di elaborazione del Piano di Parità deve essere oggetto di negoziazione con il rappresentante legale dei lavoratori.
            • È istituito un Registro dei Piano di Parità delle imprese, nel quale vanno iscritti tutti i Piani di Parità adottato dalle imprese, indipendentemente dal numero di lavoratori occupati.

            L’RDL 6/2019 introduce peraltro una nuova formulazione dell’articolo 28 dello Statuto dei Lavoratori, la quale sancisce l’obbligo per le imprese di conformarsi al principio della parità retributiva tra uomini e donne, stabilendo una serie di misure e obblighi a carico delle imprese, al fine di garantire l’effettivo rispetto della parità retributiva.

            In particolare, le nuove misure inserite nell’articolo 28 dello Statuto sono le seguenti:

            • Il testo definisce la nozione di “lavoro di pari valore“, al fine di promuovere un criterio unico ed eliminare ogni dubbio al riguardo.
            • Le imprese sono tenute a mantenere un Registro delle Retribuzioni, riportando i valori medi delle retribuzioni, delle componenti retributive supplementari e delle percezioni extra-salariali del proprio personale, differenziando i dati per genere e distribuendoli per gruppi professionali, categorie professionali o posizioni di lavoro di pari valore.
            • Il Registro delle Retribuzioni dovrà essere reso accessibile al rappresentante legale dei lavoratori.
            • Nelle imprese che occupano almeno 50 lavoratori con una retribuzione media relativa ai lavoratori di un genere superiore di almeno il 25% rispetto a quella dell’altro, è necessario inserire nel Registro delle Retribuzioni una motivazione di tale disparità, certificando che essa è dovuta a ragioni diverse dal genere dei lavoratori.

            L’inosservanza degli obblighi in materia di parità e, in particolare, di quelli attinenti al Piano di Parità ed alla parità retributiva tra uomini e donne, può comportare l’applicazione di pesanti sanzioni da parte dell’Ispettorato del Lavoro e della “Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social”.

            On 28 May 2019 the Dutch Parliament adopted new employment legislation: The Balanced Labour Market Act (‘Wet Arbeidsmarkt in Balans’), hereinafter the WAB. The most important changes are discussed below.

            New cumulation ground for dismissal

            The legislation introduces a new ground for dismissal. This makes it a bit easier for employers to dismiss employees. Dismissal will also be possible if there is a sum of circumstances, the so-called cumulation ground. Now the employer must fully comply with 1 of the 8 grounds for dismissal. This new ground gives the court the opportunity to combine circumstances. The employee can receive an extra half transitional allowance (on top of the current statutory transitional allowance) if the cumulation ground is used for the dismissal.

            Severance: Transitional allowance

            The new act arranges that employees will have the right to a transitional allowance immediately from the first start of the employment contract, instead of only after two years.

            The accrual of transitional allowance is reduced in case of long-term employment. The accrual for everyone, regardless of the age of the employee, is one third of a monthly salary.

            There will be a scheme for small employers to compensate the transitional allowance if they have to end their business due to retirement or illness.

            Extending the scope of the chain of employment agreements

            The current period after which successive fixed-term employment contracts legally change into an employment contract for an indefinite period is two years. The WAB broadens the succession of temporary contracts. Under the WAB it will still be possible to enter into a maximum of three temporary contracts. The maximum period of fixed-term contracts will be extended to three years. This chain of successive fixed-term employment contracts can be broken by an interruption period of six months.

            It is possible to shorten the interruption period between a chain of fixed-term contracts in a Collective Bargaining Agreement from six to three months if there is recurring temporary work that can be done for a maximum of nine months a year.

            An exception to the chain provision will be made for temporary workers in primary education who replace employees who became ill.

            Call agreement

            A new definition is introduced in Article 7: 628a paragraph 9 of the Dutch Civil Code: the ‘call agreement’. In call agreements the number of working hours per period and the salary are not established upfront but can vary depending on for example the amount of work available. Under the WAB an employee must be called by the employer at least four days in advance. If the employer does not follow this regulation, the employee is not obligated to come in for work. Call workers retain the right to wages for the period for which they were called if the work is cancelled less than four days in advance. The employer is obliged to offer the call worker an employment contract after a year for the average number of hours that he has worked in the previous twelve months. In Collective Bargaining Agreements alternative arrangements can be made under certain conditions.

            Payrolling

            Payroll employees will receive the same legal position and primary and secondary employment conditions as employees who are employed by the employer.

            Payroll employees are also entitled to an ‘adequate’ pension scheme.

            Unemployment benefit premium differentiation

            In order to make employment contracts for an indefinite period of time more attractive for employers, the WAB arranges for an unemployment benefit premium differentiation between permanent and temporary contracts. A lower premium will apply for employment contracts for an indefinite period of time and a higher premium for fixed-term employment contracts.

            Commencing date

            The intended commencing date of the WAB is 1 January 2020. The right to an adequate pension scheme for payrolling starts on 1 January 2021.

            The author of this post is Regine de Wit.

            10 practical aspects to consider for an adequate timing

            Meanwhile similar legal standards apply in most industrialized countries if an employment relationship shall be terminated; however, in every jurisdiction some specifics still need to be considered. The following ten aspects may be a first general guideline for the termination of an employment contract in Germany, in particular regarding its timing.

            1. In some cases notice needs to be given within a two-week period

            In case of gross misconduct an employer may be entitled to terminate an employment relationship forthwith. However, if notice of termination is not served to the employee within two weeks after acknowledgement of the respective facts, this right is forfeited.

            1. Notice has to be given in writing

            The notice has to be signed by the legal representative of the employer and delivered to the employee. Neither a transmission by facsimile nor an email with a scanned copy is sufficient. If the representative is not on site, timing may become an essential aspect of the termination process.

            1. Ordinary dismissal may be prohibited by a collective bargaining agreement

            Collective bargaining agreements often provide a ban on ordinary dismissal under certain circumstances (e.g. based on the age of the employee). A careful assessment of all applicable collective bargaining agreements before a termination is therefore indispensable.

            1. Insufficient information of the works councils may lead to an invalid termination

            The establishment of a works council is not mandatory in Germany. However, if it is established, it needs to be notified and heard before every termination of an employment contract. The notification must contain a sufficient description of the grounds for the termination, otherwise the termination may be deemed invalid. Having been notified, the works council has one week (in some cases: three days) to object. Any termination before such term without consent of the works council would be deemed invalid as well. Timing may therefore become again an essential aspect of the termination process.

            1. General dismissal protection is related to seniority and size of the establishment

            General dismissal protection is basically applicable in establishments with more than 10 employees. Exceptions may apply in favour of those employees whose employment relationships commenced already before 1st January 2004. In addition, the respective employee needs to have at least a seniority of six month. If these criteria are met, the termination has to be justified by operational reasons, misconduct or personal incapacity as set out in the Dismissal Protection Act.

            1. Some terminations may need prior permission

            Irrespective of the application of the afore mentioned Dismissal Protection Act some kind of terminations (e.g. employees on parental leave) may need a special permission of the works council, the Labour Court or the respective public authority as applicable. These procedures may last from some days up to two years.

            1. There is no general claim for severance payment in case of an unfair dismissal

            Aside from those agreed in termination agreements there is no general claim for severance payment in case of an unfair dismissal. In general, the statutory remedy will only be reinstatement and back pay. Only under certain circumstances each party may apply for the termination of the employment relationship and a severance payment in front of the Labour Court. However, in most of the cases parties end up in a voluntary termination agreement.

            1. Non-competes may lead to extensive payments and cannot be withdrawn forthwith unilaterally without cause

            A binding covenant to non-compete leads to a compensation payment of at least 50 % of the former salary for every month of its duration. Even in case of a justified termination it may only be terminated with a notice period of one year. However, both parties may agree upon its immediate suspension in a termination agreement.

            1. Any termination agreement has to be in written form as well

            Also a termination agreement needs to fulfil the same formal requirements as set out already above under point 2. Again, if the representative is not on site, timing may become an essential aspect of the bargaining process.

            1. The forfeiture clause of a termination agreement may not cover all claims 

            Termination agreements often contain general forfeiture clauses at their end, covering also those potential claims which have not been explicitly mentioned or identified by the parties. However, some claims (e.g. pension claims) may not be covered by such a (general) forfeiture clause.

            Please note that these ten aspects contain general information only. Further details as well as possible exceptions therefore need to be checked on a case-by-case basis by a professional advisor.

             

            Tha author of this post is Alexander Lentz

            L’imprenditore che intenda concentrarsi esclusivamente sul proprio core business ha la possibilità di ricorrere ad altri imprenditori, a cui affidare la realizzazione di tutte quelle opere e di quei servizi comunque necessari per la gestione dell’impresa.

            Il termine tecnico che si utilizza per definire un tale modus operandi è quello di “esternalizzazione” di parte dell’attività imprenditoriale e, solitamente, l’accordo che regola tale tipologia di collaborazione è un contratto di appalto, vale a dire il contratto con il quale una parte si impegna a compiere un’opera o un servizio a favore di un’altra e verso un corrispettivo in denaro.

            Esempio di contratto di appalto d’opera potrebbe essere il contratto con il quale un’impresa edile si obbliga a costruire un palazzo per una società immobiliare; esempio di appalto di servizi potrebbe essere il contratto che si stipula con un’impresa di pulizie per la pulizia del proprio stabile.

            L’appalto ha per oggetto una prestazione di “fare” nell’ambito della quale un soggetto, detto appaltatore, si impegna a svolgere un’attività determinata, fornendo ed organizzando i mezzi necessari e gestendo la realizzazione a proprio rischio; è poi necessario che l’attività sia organizzata in forma di impresa e che quindi l’appaltatore sia, esso stesso, un imprenditore.

            In Italia lo strumento dell’appalto ha sempre avuto grande diffusione ed utilizzo e da sempre rappresenta lo strumento privilegiato per esternalizzare attività poco remunerative nell’ambito di realtà imprenditoriali complesse: obiettivo di chi ricorre all’appalto è quello di realizzare efficienza in termini di risorse, sia economiche (riduzione dei costi) che materiali (riduzione di personale e delle responsabilità connesse alla sua gestione).

            Quanto sopra vale anche per gli imprenditori esteri che gestiscono o decidono di avviare un’attività in Italia: l’appalto rappresenta un ottimo strumento per delegare ad altri soggetti, in loco e con una specifica expertise in materia, la gestione di problematiche complesse quali: l’ottenimento di autorizzazioni pubbliche, l’approvvigionamento di particolari materie prime, il reclutamento sul territorio di risorse umane qualificate.

            L’esternalizzazione della attività non è un fenomeno omogeneo e le esigenze che spesso si presentano in concreto sono suscettibili di prestarsi anche a differenti soluzioni, a seconda dell’oggetto della prestazione, della tipologia e delle caratteristiche del committente o della particolare natura degli interessi coinvolti.

            Proprio in virtù delle suddette particolarità molto spesso, in luogo del contratto di appalto, l’imprenditore fa ricorso al contratto di subfornitura.

            Con il contratto di subfornitura un imprenditore si impegna a effettuare, per conto di una impresa committente, lavorazioni su prodotti semilavorati o su materie prime forniti dalla committente medesima, o si impegna a fornire all’impresa prodotti o servizi destinati ad essere incorporati o comunque ad essere utilizzati nell’ambito dell’attività economica del committente o nella produzione di un bene complesso, in conformità a progetti esecutivi, conoscenze tecniche e tecnologiche, modelli o prototipi forniti dall’impresa committente.

            Sintetizzando e forse banalizzando fiorenti dibattiti dottrinali e giurisprudenziali, potremmo dire che molto spesso la differenza tra un appalto di servizi e la “subfornitura” consiste nel fatto che in caso di subfornitura le attività oggetto del contratto vengono svolte su materiali del committente e/o consistono nella realizzazione di beni o servizi funzionali al processo produttivo del committente; in ogni caso, la subfornitura comporta la “dipendenza tecnologica” (ed anche economica) del subfornitore nei confronti del committente.

            Proprio il decentramento e la dissociazione che l’esternalizzazione di processi e attività realizza tra il “gestore” dell’attività esternalizzata ed il fruitore finale della stessa, suscita da sempre grande attenzione da parte del legislatore italiano.

            Attenzione finalizzata a tutelare soprattutto i dipendenti coinvolti nell’attività esternalizzata in caso di eventi nefasti idonei a privarli di garanzie legali di cui, invece, possono continuare a godere i dipendenti dell’appaltante committente (pensiamo ad esempio alla sofferenza finanziaria dell’appaltatore/subfornitore, o addirittura al suo coinvolgimento in procedure concorsuali, da cui derivi il mancato pagamento di retribuzioni e contributi).

            Per tali ragioni, ormai a far data dal 2003, il legislatore italiano ha introdotto un oneroso regime di solidarietà tra committente e appaltatore, nonché con ciascuno degli eventuali subappaltatori che, entro il limite di due anni dalla cessazione dell’appalto, sono obbligati in solido a corrispondere ai lavoratori i trattamenti retributivi, comprese le quote di trattamento di fine rapporto, nonché i contributi previdenziali e i premi assicurativi dovuti in relazione al periodo di esecuzione del contratto di appalto.

            Sino al mese di dicembre del 2017 la giurisprudenza di merito era consolidata nel ritenere che il regime della responsabilità solidale fosse applicabile esclusivamente all’appalto di servizi e non alla subfornitura. Circostanza questa che rendeva il ricorso alla subfornitura potenzialmente meno oneroso per il committente.

            Con sentenza n. 254 del 6 dicembre scorso, tuttavia, la prospettiva è stata completamente ribaltata dalla Corte Costituzionale che chiamata a pronunciarsi in materia ha stabilito l’applicazione estensiva del principio della responsabilità solidale anche tra committente e subfornitore.

            La sentenza parte dall’analisi della nota questione giurisprudenziale circa la configurazione giuridica del contratto di subfornitura e, in particolare, circa l’autonomia o meno del contratto di fornitura rispetto al contratto di appalto.

            Senza entrare nel merito del dibattito giurisprudenziale esistente, la Corte Costituzionale sostiene che, al di là dell’orientamento seguito quanto all’assimilazione o meno della subfornitura al contratto di appalto, è possibile operare l’estensione della responsabilità del committente/appaltatore ai crediti di lavoro dei dipendenti del subfornitore.

            Ciò in quanto l’introduzione della norma sulla responsabilità solidale in ipotesi di appalto, non può giustificare l’esclusione della medesima garanzia nei confronti dei dipendenti del subfornitore, atteso che la tutela del soggetto che assicura un’attività lavorativa indiretta non può non estendersi a tutti i livelli di decentramento.

            Sulla base di tali considerazioni, dunque, il principio della responsabilità solidale va correttamente interpretato nel senso che il committente/appaltatore è obbligato in solido (anche) con il subfornitore, relativamente ai crediti lavorativi, contributivi e assicurativi dei dipendenti di questi, al pari quindi di quanto lo è verso i dipendenti del subappaltatore.

            In sostanza il committente risponde direttamente, salvo successiva rivalsa, per le rivendicazioni economiche avanzate dai dipendenti dell’appaltatore, del subappaltatore e del subfornitore e di tutti i lavoratori che dovessero essere stati utilizzati nell’attività esternalizzata in relazione a: i) crediti retributivi maturati durante il periodo di correlazione tra committente ed impresa che ha eseguito i lavori, ivi compresi, “pro – quota”, quelli relativi al trattamento di fine rapporto; e ii) contributi previdenziali e premi assicurativi dovuti per il periodo di esecuzione della prestazione.

            Il lavoratore può chiedere direttamente al committente il pagamento di quanto maturato nei confronti del proprio datore. Il committente, chiamato in giudizio, non può mai chiedere l’escussione del coobbligato in solido: deve pagare salva l’azione di regresso.

            Il committente quindi, nonostante l’esigenza iniziale fosse quella di fare efficienza e ridurre costi, può trovarsi esposto ad un rischio economico molto maggiore rispetto al costo risparmiato, soprattutto se le rivendicazioni economiche riguardano situazioni non controllabili a priori: facciamo riferimento ad esempio, all’eventuale personale utilizzato “in maniera irregolare” dall’appaltatore/subfornitore, oppure alle rivendicazioni connesse allo svolgimento di mansioni superiori, od anche alla richiesta di lavoro straordinario al di fuori dei parametri di legge.

            Esistono naturalmente sistemi e meccanismi idonei a contenere il rischio o, comunque, idonei a garantire al committente maggiore controllo sul corretto funzionamento della filiera esternalizzata.

            Tra questi, ad esempio, alla possibilità di prevedere contrattualmente strumenti di tutela economica quali fideiussioni e manleve.

            Ma esiste anche la possibilità di implementare, sempre nel contratto, un adeguato sistema di controllo sulla corretta gestione del personale nonché sull’erogazione di retribuzioni, contributi e premi assicurativi.

            Alla luce di quanto sopra, concludiamo individuando nella figura del consulente esperto in materia di diritto del lavoro il miglior supporto per l’imprenditore che intenda avventurarsi in maniera consapevole e sicura in un processo di esternalizzazione.

            L’autore di questo articolo è Domenica Cotroneo.

            Il distacco transnazionale di lavoratori è quel meccanismo attraverso cui le imprese di uno Stato membro prestano servizi in un altro Stato membro inviando direttamente i propri dipendenti nel territorio di quest’ultimo.

            Nel corso degli ultimi 20 anni tale fenomeno è cresciuto in maniera rilevante a livello europeo, soprattutto a seguito dell’ingresso nell’Unione dei Paesi dell’est, che avevano – e in parte continuano ad avere – un costo del lavoro sensibilmente più basso di quello degli altri Stati membri.

            Il fenomeno è stato quindi oggetto di diversi interventi del legislatore europeo e di quelli nazionali, nonché di alcune rilevanti decisioni della Corte di Giustizia. Esso si pone infatti in relazione con diversi diritti fondamentali riconosciuti dall’Unione e richiede un equilibrato bilanciamento degli interessi in gioco.

            Occorre garantire le libertà di circolazione di lavoratori,  capitali e merci e, in particolare, la libera prestazione dei servizi (art. 56 TFUE), salvaguardando al contempo la leale concorrenza tra le imprese e la tutela dei lavoratori. Il legislatore comunitario intervenne sul tema con la Direttiva 96/71/CE (attuata in Italia col D. Lgs. 72/2000), poi integrata dalla Direttiva 2014/67/UE (attuata in Italia col D. Lgs. 136/2016).

            Il legislatore europeo e quello nazionale perseguono con le citate disposizioni due principali obiettivi:

            – contrastare i distacchi fittizi attraverso società di comodo, le cosiddette letterbox company, garantendo equilibrio concorrenziale a livello europeo;

            – garantire uniformità di trattamento e di tutela ai lavoratori coinvolti, impedendo fenomeni di ‘dumping sociale’.

            Per raggiungere questi obiettivi viene rafforzato il sistema di cooperazione amministrativa tra le diverse autorità ispettive nazionali,  vengono individuati criteri predefiniti per la valutazione dell’autenticità del distacco e vengono stabilite condizioni minime da garantire ai lavoratori.

            Per valutare l’autenticità del distacco, l’art. 4 della direttiva 2014/67/UE (recepito nell’art. 3 della legge italiana) indica alcune caratteristiche da prendere in considerazione con riferimento alle imprese coinvolte e ai lavoratori distaccati.

            Per le imprese sono considerati rilevanti i seguenti elementi:

            1. a) il luogo in cui l’impresa ha la propria sede legale e amministrativa, utilizza uffici, paga imposte e contributi previdenziali ed è iscritta alla camera di commercio;
            2. b) il luogo in cui i lavoratori sono assunti e quello da cui sono distaccati;
            3. c) la legge applicabile ai contratti stipulati dall’impresa con i suoi lavoratori e con i suoi clienti;
            4. d) il luogo in cui l’impresa esercita la propria attività economica principale e in cui è occupato il suo personale amministrativo;
            5. e) il numero dei contratti eseguiti o l’ammontare del fatturato realizzato dall’impresa nello Stato membro di stabilimento, tenendo conto della specificità delle piccole e medie imprese e di quelle di nuova costituzione.

            Per i lavoratori vengono prese in considerazione queste circostanze:

            1. a) lo svolgimento dell’attività lavorativa per un periodo di tempo limitato in un altro Stato membro;
            2. b) la data di inizio del distacco;
            3. c) l’esercizio abituale dell’attività lavorativa nello Stato di provenienza;
            4. d) il ritorno a prestare attività lavorativa nello Stato cui è stato distaccato;
            5. e) la natura e le modalità di svolgimento dell’attività;
            6. f) il rimborso da parte del datore di lavoro distaccante delle spese di viaggio, vitto o alloggio  e le modalità di pagamento;
            7. g) eventuali periodi precedenti in cui la medesima attività è stata svolta dallo stesso o da un altro lavoratore distaccato.

            Tutte queste circostanze devono essere considerate nel loro complesso, nessuna è di per sé decisiva e spetta alle autorità nazionali la valutazione finale dell’autenticità o meno del distacco.

            L’eventuale accertamento di un distacco fittizio determina rilevanti sanzioni amministrative a carico sia dell’impresa distaccante che di quella utilizzatrice, nonché la loro corresponsabilità per i crediti dei lavoratori.

            Il legislatore italiano ha inoltre rafforzato tale previsione: in simmetria con quanto previsto per i casi di intermediazione illecita di mano d’opera, ha infatti stabilito che, se il distacco non risulta autentico, “il lavoratore è considerato a tutti gli effetti alle dipendenze del soggetto che ne ha utilizzato la prestazione” (art. 3 legge italiana).

            Ai fini della tutela dei lavoratori e dell’equilibrio concorrenziale, l’art. 3 della direttiva 96/71/CE (art. 4 della legge italiana) stabilisce che, qualunque sia la legislazione applicabile al rapporto di lavoro, gli Stati membri devono far sì che ai lavoratori distaccati sul loro territorio siano garantite, per il periodo del distacco, condizioni di lavoro analoghe a quelle dei lavoratori nazionali. In particolare, i lavoratori distaccati devono godere di un trattamento equivalente in relazione a:

            – periodi massimi di lavoro e minimi di riposo;

            – durata minima delle ferie annuali retribuite;

            – tariffe minime salariali;

            – sicurezza e salute sul lavoro;

            – tutela per lavoratrici madri, bambini e giovani;

            – parità di trattamento uomo/donna e principi di non discriminazione.

            Dal punto di vista pratico, l’aspetto di più complessa valutazione riguarda le tariffe minime salariali. Nei diversi paesi dell’Unione esse sono infatti definite in maniera diversa, da fonti diverse (legge/fonti amministrative/contratti collettivi) e sono composte da molte voci, non sempre sovrapponibili.

            D’altro canto, gli aspetti economici sono determinanti per imprese e lavoratori per valutare l’opportunità e la convenienza del distacco.

            Proprio per queste ragioni, la Corte di Giustizia ha chiarito che il confronto tra le diverse tariffe nazionali deve essere condotto confrontando l’importo complessivo e non le singole voci salariali. La Corte ha inoltre precisato che il confronto deve essere limitato alle voci retributive in senso stretto, cioè in diretta relazione con la prestazione, escludendo per esempio i premi supplementari. Infine la giurisprudenza comunitaria ha chiarito che le voci retributive da prendere in considerazione devono essere accessibili e chiare per il datore di lavoro distaccante.

            Da ultimo le disposizioni europee impongono agli Stati membri di consentire ai lavoratori distaccati sul loro territorio l’accesso agli strumenti di tutela, anche giudiziaria, predisposti per i lavoratori nazionali.

            A questo fine, in Italia si è esplicitamente prevista la facoltà, per i lavoratori distaccati, di agire sia in sede amministrativa che giudiziale (art. 5 legge italiana).

            In Spagna il licenziamento viene classificato individuale o collettivo, a seconda del numero di lavoratori assoggettati a tale misura.

            L’articolo 51 dello Statuto dei Lavoratori considera “licenziamento collettivo” l’estinzione del rapporto di lavoro causata da motivazioni economiche, tecniche, organizzative o di produzione quando, nel periodo di novanta giorni, coinvolga: (i) almeno dieci lavoratori di un’impresa con meno di 100 dipendenti; (ii) il dieci per cento dei lavoratori in una impresa che abbia tra cento e trecento dipendenti; (iii) trenta lavoratori nelle imprese con più di trecento dipendenti.

            Il licenziamento potrà essere impugnato in sede giudiziale, entro 20 giorni lavorativi e potrà essere dichiarato legittimo (procedente), illegittimo (improcedente) o nullo.

            Il licenziamento si considera legittimo quando è confermato l’inadempimento da parte del lavoratore contestato dall’imprenditore nella comunicazione del licenziamento e sono stati soddisfatti i requisiti formali, quali (i) la comunicazione per iscritto al lavoratore; (ii) una sufficiente descrizione dei fatti che hanno determinato il licenziamento e (iii) l’indicazione della data a partire della quale il licenziamento sarà efficace.

            Sarà dichiarato illegittimo il licenziamento privo dei requisiti citati nel paragrafo precedente.

            Il licenziamento è nullo nei seguenti casi: (i) violazione dei diritti fondamentali o libertà pubblica; (ii) il lavoratore è una vittima di violenza di genere; (iii) salvo che si dimostri la giusta causa, nei casi di: lavoratrici incinte, con permesso di maternità, paternità o allattamento, o con riduzione della giornata lavorativa per curare un minore di dodici anni o una persona con una incapacità fisica, psichica o sensoriale.

            Nel caso in cui il licenziamento sia dichiarato illegittimo, l’imprenditore entro cinque giorni dovrà scegliere se reintegrare il lavoratore nel posto di lavoro (e pagargli le mensilità trascorse tra il licenziamento e la notificazione della sentenza, i cosiddetti salarios de tramitación) oppure pagargli l’indennità, il cui importo dipende dalla durata del rapporto, come si analizzerà di seguito. Nel caso in cui il lavoratore licenziato sia un rappresentante sindacale, la scelta tra le due opzioni spetterà al lavoratore e non all’imprenditore.

            Se il licenziamento è dichiarato nullo, l’imprenditore avrà l’obbligo di reintegrare il lavoratore nel posto di lavoro e potrà essere condannato al risarcimento dei danni assieme al pagamento delle mensilità trascorse tra il licenziamento e la notifica della sentenza.

            Come accennato in precedenza, l’indennità dovuta al lavoratore (alternativa al reintegro per i licenziamenti illegittimi) dipende dal momento in cui è iniziato il rapporto di lavoro.

            L’indennità da pagare nel caso del licenziamento di un lavoratore assunto dopo il 12 febbraio 2012, sarà pari a 33 giorni di retribuzione per ogni anno lavorato.

            Nel caso in cui il lavoratore licenziato sia stato assunto prima del 12 febbraio 2012, l’indennità verrà calcolata come segue:

            • per il periodo trascorso tra la firma del contratto e il 12 febbraio 2012, l’indennità è pari a 45 giorni di retribuzione per ogni anno di rapporto;
            • sarà pari a 33 giorni di retribuzione per ogni anno lavorato dopo il 12 febbraio 2012.

            In ogni caso l’indennità non potrà ammontare a più di 720 giorni di retribuzione, salvo il caso in cui, dal calcolo dell’indennità del periodo precedente il 12 febbraio 2012, risultasse un numero di giorni superiore a 720, nel quale l’indennità non potrà essere superiore a quarantadue mensilità.

            Inoltre è importante ricordare che l’indennità in caso di licenziamento è esente da qualunque imposta fino a 180.000 euro. Per la cifra superiore, la tassazione sarà parificata ai redditi di lavoro, con una riduzione del 30% nel caso di rapporto di lavoro terminato da almeno due anni.

            Javier Gaspar

            Aree di attività

            • Arbitrato
            • Distribuzione
            • Franchising
            • Contenzioso
            • Sport
            Contatta Javier
            Latvia - Legalmondo

            Latvia – Establishing a company
            • Diritto societario
            • Lettonia

            Scrivi a Javier





              Leggi la privacy policy di Legalmondo.
              Questo sito è protetto da reCAPTCHA e si applicano le Norme sulla privacy e i Termini di servizio di Google.