Blog

Share
Covid-19 / Coronavirus has led the Belgian authorities to impose a partial lockdown until 3 April 2020. Whether your are facing a ban of your activities, a decline in your business or, on the contrary, an exceptional business increase, you find the first answers in this chart: https://reliancelaw.be/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Corona-Covid-19-Practical-guidance-for-employers.pdf Governments are also taking various measures to support economic activity. We keep you posted. ■
Share
In March 2019, Belgium introduced the so-called single permit, i.e. one permit covering both the authorization to work and reside in Belgium. As we celebrate its first birthday, we will analyze how this new procedure works in practice. In this webinar, we will also provide you with an overview of the applicable legislation when employing foreign nationals in Belgium, including the different obligations with regard to employment, social security and taxes. To register: https://engage.littler.com/15/275/landing-pages/webinar-rsvp-blank.asp?sid=478139d7-285e-412d-97f3-baf694ffd57f
Share
Less than 2 years ago, Belgium introduced the so-called "cash for car", giving employees the possibility to exchange their company car for tax-friendly extra cash. The goal of the law was to reduce trafic jam and air pollution by reducing the number of company cars (reportedly around 15% of all cars registered in Belgium). Even before the law was adopted, the Council of State held that the means of achieving the law's aim were not appropriate or proportionate and that the law -if adopted- would be discriminatory. Not surprisingly, the Constitutional Court annulled the less than 2-years old law in its decision of last Thursday (23 January 2020). The practical impact for employers of the Constitutional Court's decision seems fairly limited. In a timeframe of about one year, reportedly 0.06% of the total number of company cars had effectively been exchanged for extra cash (an equivalent of about 500 cars). ■
Share
On 25 May 2018, the Belgian labor court of Ghent requested a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on how to interpret the TUPE Directive (implemented in Belgium through collective bargaining agreement 32bis) in the case where there is a simultaneous transfer of various parts of an undertaking, which parts are transferred to various transferees. The CJEU was asked to answer the following questions: Must the TUPE Directive be interpreted as meaning that, in the case where there is a simultaneous transfer of various parts of an undertaking, which parts are transferred to various transferees, (i) the employment contract of a worker who was employed in each of the transferred parts, will be transferred to each of the transferees, albeit in proportion to the extent of the employment of the aforementioned worker in the part of the undertaking acquired by each transferee, or (ii) must that provision be interpreted as meaning that the aforementioned rights and obligations are transferred in their entirety to the transferee of the part of the undertaking in which the aforementioned worker was principally employed, or (iii) as meaning that, if the provisions of the Directive cannot be interpreted in any of the aforementioned ways, there is no transfer to any transferee of the rights and obligations arising from the employment contract of the aforementioned worker, which is also the case if it is not possible to determine separately the extent of the worker’s employment in each of the transferred parts of the undertaking? The opinion rendered by the Advocate General on 26 November 2019 seems to allow, as a matter of principle, the possibility of a transfer to each of the transferees, in proportion to the extent of the employment of the worker in the part of the undertaking acquired by each transferee. ■