In this section, we share our thoughts on recent interesting decisions or information in human resources law.

The failure to pay the compensation in lieu of notice is not a criminal offence. The five-year statutory limitation period is not applicable.

On the occasion of its order of 12 March 2018, the Labour Court of Brussels recalled the applicable principles with regard to the statutory limitation vis-a-vis the failure to pay the compensation in lieu of notice. It is reminded that by virtue of Article 15 of the Law of 3 July 1978 relating to the…


GDPR: New HR obligations? Adapted tools at your disposal.

A few weeks before the entry into force of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), everyone is focusing on the actions to be taken to comply with the new rules applicable as of next 25 May. The management of human resources involves the processing of a great deal of personal data. Special attention must therefore…


Is the dismissal of a worker unable to work due to illness (not disability) a discriminatory measure based on the state of health? No, if the dismissal is justified by the need to reorganise the department.

A female worker is dismissed with a payment of compensation in lieu of notice during her inability to work due to burnout. She summons her former employer before the Brussels labour court: The employee had been employed since 2008. In February 2013, she was promoted and received a raise linked to objectives to be achieved…


The wearing of religious symbols at work

The two recent decisions of the EU Court of Justice (hereinafter “the Court”). Bougnaoui v. Micropole and Achbita v. G4S Secure Solutions were instances expected to give, each in their own context, an answer to the following question: in what conditions can an employer from the private sector prohibit the wearing of religious symbols at work? 1. Balance between…


Exemption of performance during notice period? Beware of implicit dismissal!

An employer who unilaterally exempts an employee from performance during the notice period is guilty of an implicit dismissal, because not providing work is a change of an essential contract component. The fact that the employee waited over one month to bring up the implicit dismissal was also not late, as a result of which…