Hungary - The New Labor Code

By Orsolya Görgényi and László Pók[1]

    (1)    Introduction

Hungarian employment law has gone through significant changes this year since a new Labor Code[2] entered into force on July 1, 2012.

The main purpose of the introduction of the Labor Code was to create a labor law system, which is in line with new market conditions and has a greater acknowledgement of the needs of the service industry and SMEs.

(2)    More flexibility for the parties

The new Labor Code offers more flexibility to the parties in negotiating the terms of the employment relationship.  The general rule concerning employment agreements remained the same - that deviation from the Labor Code is only allowed in favor of the employees.[3]  However, the Labor Code provides more possibilities compared to the Old Labor Code[4] for the parties to deviate from the provisions of the Labor Code, even to the detriment of employees.  On the top of this, in collective agreements, the parties are free to agree on the conditions (even if such conditions are not favorable for the employees) except if there is a provision to the contrary.  It is important to note that, in each chapter, there is a list of paragraphs where deviation from the main rules is prohibited or, in the case of collective agreements, where the deviation is allowed only in favor of the employees.  In the case of executives[5], parties are free to deviate from the Labor Code.

(3)    Promotion of atypical forms of employment

There is no general definition of atypical forms of employment in the Labor Code.  However, we can speak about atypical employment if some characteristics of the typical forms of employment are missing.  The basic characteristics of typical forms of employment are an indefinite term, the full-time working order and that the place of employment is the office of the employer.  

The spread of atypical forms of employment (e.g. part-time employment, fixed-term employment etc.) is quite low in Hungary.  The Labor Code introduced more flexible rules with respect to atypical terms of employment to create a legal environment where the parties can find forms of employment that can better suit to their needs.

One of the leading examples is related to the termination of employment relationships governed by fixed-term employment contracts.  The Old Labor Code did not provide the possibility of (ordinary) notice for fixed-term employment contracts.  However, according to the Labor Code, fixed-term contracts can also be terminated by (ordinary) notice if one of the following reasons exists:  (i)  the employer is under liquidation or bankruptcy proceedings;  (ii)  in case of the incapacity of the employee;  or (iii)  if the employment relationship cannot be maintained due to reasons out of the parties' control.[6]  

Employees may also terminate fixed-term employment contracts by (ordinary) notice if the maintenance of the employment becomes impossible or disproportionally difficult with respect to the employee’s circumstances.[7]

Another example of promoting the atypical forms of employment is that the Labor Code now obliges employers to amend employment agreements to a 4-hour per day part time agreement upon the request of employees until the third birthday of the employee’s child.[8]  This provision is also intended to help employees to come back to work after maternity leave.

In addition to the above, new forms of atypical employment were introduced, like employment on call[9], job sharing[10] etc.

(4)    Consequences of unlawful termination

One of the big achievements of the Labor Code is that it makes the costs of a potential unlawful termination more calculable, therefore it highly reduces the risks for employers in the case of the termination of employment relationships. 

One of the new rules is that the employment terminates with the original notice and not with the final and binding judgment.  In addition to this, compensation to be paid by the employer to the employee for the arrears of salary will be limited to an amount equal to a 12 months' absence fee.[11]

(5)    Conclusion

A more business-friendly employment law environment was introduced in Hungary this year.  The new legislation may help companies to be more competitive and, consequently, to create jobs in Hungary.   

---

[1] Partner and associate respectively at Szecskay Attorneys at Law, Budapest, Hungary (www.szecskay.com)

[2] See Act I of 2012. Hereinafter referred to as the "Labor Code".

[3] See section 43 of the Labor Code.

[4] See Act XXII of 1992. Hereinafter referred to as the "Old Labor Code". 

[5] Executive employees are the head of the employer and his/her deputies. In addition to these executives, by law the employment agreement may classify other employees as executives if they are in key positions and their basic salary exceeds the mandatory basic salary sevenfold. (Please see Section 208 of the Labor Code.)

[6] Section 66 (8) of the Labor Code.

[7] See section 67 (2) of the Labor Code.

[8] See section 61 (3) of the Labor Code.

[9] See section 193 of the Labor Code.

[10] See section 194 of the Labor Code.

[11] See section 82 (2) of the Labor Code.

Mexico - Reform to Mexican Labor Law; A First Step

By Ernesto Velarde Danache, Ernesto Velarde Danache, Inc.

In November 2012, the Mexican Federal Congress approved a bill submitted by President Calderon which contains a reform to the Mexican Federal Labor Law. This reform will be enacted within the next few weeks once it is promulgated by the President and published in the Federal Official Gazette.

It is important to mention that the still existing Law was enacted in 1970 and, other than minor, cosmetic, insignificant procedural modifications in the 1980’s it had not undergone any substantial modifications ever since.

Employee and employer groups, unions and politicians from a variety of backgrounds and political beliefs still consider that the reform did not address the most needed changes or additions in order to update the Law and have Mexico compete in a globalized economy, or provide additional protection or better rights and more benefits to employees, or the required certainty, ability to plan and manage controls for the benefit of employers.

The reform is, however, a first step that, despite allegations by many of the parties involved in the process, does represent a substantial modification to existing rules that will necessarily better position the country in this very competitive era.

Herein below I am going to present, and analyze, the highlights of the new legislation.

The concept of “outsourcing” is now being introduced in the Mexican labor system. Indeed, many companies, particularly those in the manufacturing sector with seasonal needs, were using outsourcing companies to provide them, at least partially, with the required labor force. By following this strategy, the outsourcing company remained the employer of record and was responsible for the payment of salaries, fringe benefits and any other social obligations. The reform now imposes a number of obligations on employers with the intention of prohibiting employers from resorting to this strategy in order to avoid compliance with labor rules. If the mandatory requirements on the party contracting the outsourcing services are not met, then that party is to be construed the employer of record with all inherent obligations.

Mexican employers are now going to be able to execute labor agreements for seasonal workers (not permanent employees), for initial training or for trial periods. As to training agreements, the duration may be for up to 90 days for regular employees and up to 180 days for higher management, administrative positions. Trial periods can be used with a duration of up to 30 days  or up to 180 days, the latter for employees in management, administrative, professional or technical positions. The reform goes on to allow for termination without liability on the employer if the employee’s performance is not satisfactory. It is important to mention that training or trial agreements cannot be renewed or extended.

On the other hand, there are a number of new rules, requirements and obligations imposed on employers who are transferring Mexican employees to operations abroad.

New language is incorporated to Article 47 of the Law which establishes the causes of termination of employees, with cause and without liability to the employer. As a result, any actions, violence or ill treatment by employees against clients or suppliers of the employer will result in termination with cause. For the first time, the concept of sexual harassment in the work place is introduced and is now a cause of termination.

It is very important to bear in mind that for a termination to be justified it will have to meet all necessary requirements AND be notified directly to the employee or through the labor board.

Labor litigation in Mexico often takes several months or years to conclude. Most labor cases involve allegations of wrongful termination where dismissed employees seek severance compensation which in Mexico tends to be higher than in other jurisdictions. As per the terms of the Law now being modified, an employer losing a labor action for wrongful termination is liable for the payment not only of severance but also back salaries computed from the day of termination and until the final judgment is issued. The reform now sets a limit of a maximum of one year of back salaries and the payment of interest if the dispute remains unresolved after this term.

Attorneys and labor department officials using dilatory tactics or just willingly delaying the labor process are now going to be penalized.  If articles addressing these issues are actually enforced, that by itself will represent substantial savings for the parties in conflict as well as to states and federal governments when litigating labor matters before them since a lot of lawyers, with the tacit complacence of labor authorities, do abuse the many loopholes of the system and the Law, prolonging trials with the sole purpose of forcing the counterparty to settle out of frustration and desperation or just to delay an unavoidable defeat and related expense.

New concepts as to what constitutes discrimination are now incorporated; same rights for women and no discrimination based on ethnicity, health, opinions, sexual preferences, pregnancy.

It is not uncommon in Mexico that when an employer directs, particularly a unionized employee, to perform tasks that do not directly correspond to the ones contained in his/her job description the respective employee will refuse to obey alleging that he or she was not hired to perform those tasks. The new Law states that employees in Mexico will have to perform tasks which are complementary to the ones in their job description.

As per the terms of Article 83 of the new labor law, employers will now be able to hire employees by the hour as opposed to by the day as is the case under the 1970 Labor Law. As a result, employers will now have discretion as to the amount of hours an employee is needed to work. This is going to be beneficial for both sides since currently employers are prevented or reluctant to hire people who only wish to work reduced shifts.

There are many articles in the still existing Law that were long overdue for change. But there is one in particular that illustrates how outdated the 1970 Law is. This Law mandates that the payment of salaries to Mexican workers needed to be made during the shift and in cash. Needless to say, this latter obligation causes considerable concerns to Mexican employers, particularly those with large number of employees that needed to have that cash available on pay day with the related risk associated with having large amounts of cash, especially at a time when violence and criminal activity in Mexico are at a very high level. The new Law now allows for payment to be made through a deposit into an employee’s bank account, debit cards, wire transfers or any other electronic means.

Another novelty implemented by the reform is that male employees will now enjoy five fully paid days off in case of birth or adoption of a child.

As of the time of enforcement of the approved reform, Mexican employers will not have the right to ask female employees for certificates of non-pregnancy. Additionally, the fact that a female employee is pregnant, or changes her marital status or has minor children will not prevent her from being eligible for a promotion and does not give the right to an employer to terminate her.

Employees will no longer have the right to use tools and other equipment provided by the employer for personal or third party use, they will not be allowed to do or perform any type of propaganda in the work place (especially political) and most importantly they are now prohibited from engaging in sexual harassment practices against fellow employees.

As part of the new rights being granted to working mothers, if a physician so supports, they will have the right to transfer and add 4 of the 6 weeks of the maternity leave to the 6 weeks post-delivery leave. Additional time off will be granted if the baby is born with disabilities or a disease.

Employers should review and revise any existing documents they use in their day to day operations such as collective or  individual labor agreements, shop rules, termination letters, administrative reports, full and final releases and in general any other documentation that contain any reference to employer/employee relationships to make sure that when they are to be used after the new law goes into effect, they do not violate any of its terms.

Netherlands - New Dutch Government Announces Drastic Changes in Dutch Dismissal Rules

By Els de Wind, VanDoorne

On 5 November 2012 the new Dutch cabinet was formally sworn in by Queen Beatrix. On 29 October 2012, the two party coalition had unfolded their new plans with respect to the Dutch labour market. If the plans are implemented they will have a major impact on employee dismissal protection and an unemployed person’s entitlement to state unemployment benefits. Although the new dismissal system still has to be worked out in detail, some of the proposed amendments of Dutch employment law and social security rules will be highlighted. We will have to wait and see if the announced rules will eventually be implemented. It is not expected that new dismissal or unemployment benefits rules and regulations will be implemented before 2014.

Dismissal: from prior approval to non-binding advice

Currently under Dutch law, if the employer and the employee do not reach a mutual settlement on their separation, someone's employment can be terminated by the court or with prior approval of the Labor Office (UWV WERKbedrijf). An employer who is choosing the Labor Office route needs prior approval of the Labor Office before giving notice of termination. If such approval is not obtained, the employer can ask the court to terminate the employment of the employee. According to the new plans, the employer wanting to unilaterally dismiss an employee will not have a choice and must ask prior advice of the Labor Office before it can give notice of termination to the employee. The Labor Office's advice is non-binding: regardless of what the advice is, the employer will be allowed to terminate the employee’s employment. If the employee does not agree with the termination, he or she may initiate court proceedings in order to be awarded termination compensation or to have the court annul the dismissal (see below). Alternative dismissal procedures can be agreed in collective bargaining agreement provided that the agreed procedure is comparable to the statutory procedure in terms of both duration and outcome

Under the proposed system no major role remains for the court in dismissal procedures. If an employee claims in court that the dismissal is unfair, the court will have to assess the case applying the same criteria as the Labor Office. The court can only award termination compensation if it finds the dismissal wrongful or that the employer is mainly to blame for the circumstances which have led to the dismissal. If the employer disregarded the negative advice of the Labor Office and went ahead with the termination, the court may annul the termination. Further, the court will be involved in cases in which the employer seeks termination of the employment of an employee who is working on the basis of a limited term employment contract without the possibility of termination during the term and in cases in which a legal prohibition to give notice of termination exists, such as for instance cases of sickness, pregnancy and works council membership. There is no appeal against the court´s judgment.

We expect that it will still be possible for the employer and the employee to end their relationship by mutual consent without the employee losing his/her rights to state unemployment benefits.  

Transitional budget and termination compensation

An employer unilaterally terminating an employee´s employment or not extending a temporary employment contract with a duration of at least one year, must provide a so-called "transitional budget" to the employee, which is to be used for schooling purposes and for improving the employability of the employee. The transitional budget will amount to one fourth monthly salary for each service year and is capped at four monthly salaries. An employer does not have to pay the transitional budget if the dismissal is due to the employer's poor financial situation and the employer would go bankrupt if it would have to pay the transitional budget. 

                                                   

The severance payment which may be awarded by the court is capped at half a monthly salary per service year up to a maximum of EUR 75.000 gross.

State unemployment benefits

The maximum period during which an unemployed person may receive state unemployment benefits pursuant to the Unemployment Act (Werkloosheidswet) is shortened from maximum 38 to maximum 24 months. During the first 12 months the unemployment benefits will amount to a certain percentage of the last earned salary up to a certain maximum. During following 12 months the unemployment benefits will amount to a certain percentage of the statutory minimum wage.

The period during which an employee is entitled to state unemployment benefits depends on the number of service years (for different employers). For each service year during the first 10 years of service, the employee becomes entitled to one month of unemployment benefits. After the first 10 years of service, half a month of unemployment benefits is granted for each service year. Service years built up prior to the coming into force of the amendments to the Unemployment Act will be respected.

Employees 55 years and over may become eligible for additional benefits. In order for these employees to become entitled to these additional benefits, they will have the obligation to apply for jobs, as is also the case for eligibility for benefits generally under the Unemployment Act.  

Welcome to the September edition

Welcome to the September edition of the International Employment Committee Newsletter.  Many thanks as always to all those who have contributed articles to this edition.

The next issue will be published in December - please let me know if you are interested in submitting an article on an issue in your jurisdiction.

Helen Colquhoun
Dual qualified in NY and England & Wales
Withers Bergman LLP

Canada - Freedom of Association under the Charter: Snake or Tree?

By Michael A. Hines, Hicks Morley

The ancient parable of the six blind men and the elephant is a lesson in perspective. Each blind man was asked to describe “what an elephant is like” by touching one part of the animal. One, touching the trunk, proclaimed elephants to be like snakes. Another, touching a leg, declared elephants to be like trees. And so on.

This lesson, combined with the ability of courts to see what they want in earlier precedent, provides an insight into two recent decisions from Saskatchewan and Ontario on the so-called Charter “right to collective bargaining.”

The “elephant” in question is the recent Supreme Court of Canada case law on section 2(d) of the Charter, most particularly its unanimous 2007 decision in B.C. Health Services and its 2011 decision in Ontario (Attorney General) v. Fraser (“Fraser”).

Section 2(d) guarantees to everyone the fundamental “freedom of association.” The legal question here concerns the extent to which unions can use section 2(d) to challenge legislation adverse to their interests. B.C. Health Services was hailed as the case that reversed a series of 1987 Supreme Court decisions, making labour legislation and “collective bargaining” finally subject to Charter rights – a case that would, for the first time, force governments to exercise legal caution when enacting wage restraint legislation, back-to-work legislation and so on. Significantly, B.C. Health Services emphasized that section 2(d) does not prescribe any particular model of labour relations, so long as a process of “good faith collective bargaining” is statutorily protected.

The Court’s fragile “unanimity” in B.C. Health Services was soon revealed by Fraser, which yielded four sets of reasons among its nine members. It should therefore come as no surprise that these cases are now generating divergent interpretations. What is striking is the extent of the disparity. Indeed, accepting a basic shared parameter (the applicability of section 2(d) to labour law), the two most recent cases could not be more different.

On February 6, 2012, Justice Ball of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench released his decision in Saskatchewan v. Saskatchewan Federation of Labour (“SFL”). At issue was the constitutionality of The Public Service Essential Services Act (“PSES”), which guaranteed the continuous provision of public services necessary to ensure safety, health and order. Employees engaged in providing such services were prohibited from striking at any time.

PSES was unusual in two important respects. First, employers covered by PSES could determine, without appeal, which services were to be regarded as essential. Second, PSES contained no third-party dispute resolution mechanism to resolve outstanding bargaining issues. The collective bargaining concerns of “essential services workers” could remain unresolved indefinitely.

Although Justice Ball could have focused on the absence of any dispute resolution mechanism to support a conclusion that section 2(d) had been violated, his decision was much more specific. He held that section 2(d) constitutionally guarantees a right to strike. The denial within PSES of a right to strike was sufficient on its own to constitute a section 2(d) violation, forcing the government to justify this omission under section 1 of the Charter. The implications for police, hospital and other similar “no strike” labour regimes are obvious.

Justice Ball placed extensive reliance on the dissenting judgment of Chief Justice Dickson in the three 1987 decisions that B.C. Health Services had overturned. He also relied heavily on an analysis of Canada’s international treaty obligations regarding labour laws and collective bargaining, many of which advert to a “right to strike.” He regarded the majority decision in Fraser as an unqualified endorsement of B.C. Health Services. He mentioned only in passing the Court’s important observation that section 2(d) does not compel any specific model of collective bargaining.

On June 1, 2012, the Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision in Mounted Police Association of Ontario v. Canada concerning the labour law regime applicable to members of the RCMP. The issue was more fundamental and less extreme than the “right to strike” affirmation in SFL. The challenged provisions did not require the employer to recognize any employee association selected by the affected employees. Rather, the legislation provided a structure that allowed the employees to elect a number of Staff Relations Representatives (“SRRs”) who would discuss, in good faith, matters of concern with representatives of the employer. There was, of course, no right to strike. The only “dispute resolution mechanism” concerned salary, where a panel of two SRRs, two employer representatives and a neutral chair would do no more than make recommendations to the Treasury Board concerning compensation issues.

The analysis in SFL would have found a violation of section 2(d) simply based on the absence of a “Charter-guaranteed right to strike.” Yet in its unanimous decision, the Ontario Court of Appeal found the legislation to be consistent with section 2(d). SFL was not mentioned. Fraser was regarded as having tempered B.C. Health Services and was interpreted as being based largely on its unusual facts –a consideration of the Charter rights of migrant, politically disenfranchised agricultural workers that had little to say about well-organized police unions. The revered “Charter right to collective bargaining” was held to be merely a “derivative right” arising in certain cases only as an adjunct to the freedom of association. International treaties were not mentioned. Rather, the Court pointed out that many successful labour relations systems in other countries were modelled on “representative” systems like the SRR structure at issue.

This observation, combined with the statement in B.C. Health Services regarding “no single prescribed model,” allowed the Court to find that the model before it was sufficient to guarantee the associative freedoms protected by section 2(d).

So is “the Charter right to collective bargaining” a snake, a tree, or something else? The answers at this stage are anything but clear.

Denmark - Sanctions imposed on multinational corporations failing to register whistleblowing systems

By Oline Nowicki, Sofie Bille-Steenberg and Anders Etgen Reitz, IUNO

Danish subsidiaries of parent Companies listed in the US should be mindful of the parent Companies’ obligation to have whistleblowing systems under US law and to their duty to register these systems with the Danish Data Protection Agency. If the company fails to register its whistleblowing system in Denmark, it will be fined.

According to the most recent figures from August 2012, 134 companies in Denmark had registered their whistleblowing systems with the Danish Data Protection Agency.

The primary purpose of a whistleblowing hotline is to ensure that employees and others can report any wrongdoings in the company to its management or an external hotline.

Under Danish law, it is up to the company whether it wishes to introduce a whistleblowing scheme. It is, however, different under US law. And this may cause multinational corporations with Danish subsidiaries to face problems.

US law on whistleblowing systems
In 2002 the United States introduced the so-called Sarbanes-Oxley Act which provides that all publicly traded companies must have a whistleblowing system. The whistleblowing system also applies to the company’s subsidiaries, which will often appear from the internal guidelines of the subsidiary.  In 2010  the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was signed into law, and this Act gives the whistleblower a potential "bonus" equal to 10-30 % of the sanctions imposed on the company.

Multinational corporations with Danish subsidiaries obliged
The US law is significant to Danish companies if the parent company is listed in the United States and where it is typically the parent company that administers the company’s whistleblowing system. Under Danish data protection law, the company is obliged to register its whistleblowing system with the Danish Data Protection Agency. This is important for the companies as a violation of the duty to register is punished by fine. The maximum penalty is in principle imprisonment of up to four months, but this penalty has never been applied in practice.

Before the company registers the whistleblowing system with the Danish Data Protection Agency, it is necessary for the parent and the subsidiary company to clarify between themselves who will be the responsible Data Handler. This will be the company that has to ensure that the Danish regulations will be followed and that the security is up to code.
 
Easy to overlook
Many Danish parent companies have become attentive to the duty to register their whistleblowing systems in Denmark. The problems of whistleblowing systems can, however, easily be overlooked by subsidiaries with parent companies listed in the United States. Therefore, it is particularly important to pay attention to the duty to register whistleblowing schemes with the Danish Data Protection Agency and to the sanctions applied in case of failure to register.

France - New legislation: increase of human resources costs in France

By Roselyn S. Sands – Ernst & Young Société d’Avocats - Paris, France *

New legislation: increase of human resources costs in France – Part 1

As promised during the presidential campaign, the new government has enacted several reforms this summer in France. These reforms have a significant impact on human resources matters and will generally increase costs for employers as well as employees.

1)       New Finance Bill for 2012

The Finance Bill for 2012, published on August 17, 2012, contains several measures affecting tax costs for employers in France:

a)       Increased taxation on stock options and free grants of shares;

b)      Increased taxation on profit sharing payments and other employee savings vehicles;

c)       Increased taxation on overtime work;

d)      Increased taxation on termination indemnities.

a)                   Increased taxation on stock options and free grants of shares:

The Finance Bill for 2012 provides that:

·         The employer contribution to be paid upon the grant of stock options or free shares is increased from 14% to 30%.

·         The employee contribution to be paid based on profits when the options are exercised is increased from 8% to 10%.

This new measure is effective for options and free shares granted as from July 11, 2012.

b)                   Increased taxation on profit sharing and other employee company savings vehicles:

The Finance Bill for 2012 contains measures increasing from 8% to 20% the employer social contribution (forfait social) applicable to the following programs:

·         Compulsory profit sharing (participation)

·         Optional profit sharing (intéressement)

·         Company contribution to retirement plans (known as ‘PEE’ or ‘PERCO’)

·         Company contribution to optional supplementary retirement plans

·         Director’s fees (jetons de presence)

·         Bonus on profit sharing (prime de partage de profit)

This new measure is effective for payments made as from August 1, 2012.

The rate of 8% remains applicable for company contributions to supplementary welfare insurance plans.

c)                   Increased taxation on overtime:

The law of  August 21, 2007 (known as ‘TEPA’ law) provided for exemptions of employer and employee social security contributions on overtime pay.

The Finance Bill for 2012 contains cancels this TEPA law as follows:

•         Employee social security contributions and personal income tax on overtime performed will no longer be exempt.

•         Employer social security contributions on overtime pay will no longer be exempt in companies with 20 employees or more.

This new measure will generally be applicable for overtime pay as from September 1, 2012.

d)                   Increased taxation on termination indemnities

Prior to the Finance Bill for 2012, the indemnities paid to employees or corporate officers upon termination of their employment contract or office were exempt from social contributions, within certain limits, but were fully subject to social contributions when they exceeded 1 million Euro.

The Finance Bill for 2012 decreases this 1 million Euros ceiling down to 363,720 € effective for indemnities paid as of September 1, 2012. This means that if termination indemnities surpass 363,720 €, they are fully taxable for social security and employee personal income tax purposes.

2)       Key HR issues submitted to unions for negotiations

In addition to the foregoing, and in keeping with the tradition of labor relations consultations in France, the Government also released guidelines encouraging union negotiations and discussions on several HR matters prior to potential legislation on these matters in 2013–14.

These guidelines are currently under discussions and may impact HR flexibility and the costs of doing business in France over the next few years.

-         The “Generations Contract”

To manage the increasing need to keep older employees working longer discussions have been launched with the aim of promoting the employment of older employees and young employees. Exemption from social security contributions in the context of hiring both a ‘younger’ and an ‘older’ employee are being discussed as a potential incentive measure.

These negotiations could result in a draft ‘Generations Contract’ bill to be put before Parliament in early 2013.

-         Measures to secure employment and potential modifications to redundancy procedures

A guidance paper was presented to unions in September 2012 on “securing” employment including fighting against precarious employment, improving measures to avoid dismissals, clarifying mass redundancy procedures. This could result in a bill to be put before Parliament in the first quarter of 2013.

-         Mass Redundancies

A draft bill is under discussion to clarify/limit of mass redundancies in companies paying dividends to their shareholders.

-         Remuneration

An official consultation was organized by the government on remuneration paid to senior executives and increased corporate governance monitoring of very high compensation.

This could give rise to a draft bill to be put before Parliament by the end of 2012.

-         Gender equality

In an effort to achieve ‘true’ equality between men and women, negotiations started in September 2012 around current penalties for discrimination and revisions to increase the efficiency of measures that promote equality. The first measures are expected for 8 March 2013 (International Women’s day!).

-         Employee representatives

In an effort to promote social dialogue, negotiations have started in September 2012 to revisit the role of the existing employee representative bodies and simplify the numerous existing compulsory negotiations that must take place on a recurring basis within larger companies.

*

The French government will continue to pass legislation on these human resources matters. We will be sure to provide a new update (Part 2) in the next issue.