Global HR News

Ontario Court Confirms RSU Termination Clauses Must Comply With ESA Standards

A recent Ontario decision confirms that employers cannot treat equity plans as separate from employment law. The Court held that termination provisions in restricted share unit (RSU) plans are subject to the same Employment Standards Act (ESA) scrutiny as traditional termination clauses. If the language would fail in an employment contract, it may also fail in an equity plan.

Background to the decision

In Liggett v. Veeva Software Systems Inc., the employee challenged RSU forfeiture language that cut off equity entitlement as of the last day worked. The employer argued that equity plans operate differently from employment contracts and should not be assessed under the same ESA framework.

The Court disagreed. It held that when equity compensation forms part of an employee’s remuneration, any clause limiting entitlement during the notice period must comply with the ESA.

The Court’s key message

The Court made clear that:

• Equity is still compensation, and
• Employers must clearly state what happens to equity awards upon termination.

If the language could mislead an employee about their minimum statutory entitlements, the clause is unenforceable. The Court also criticised the plan’s complexity, noting that convoluted drafting increases the risk of invalidation.

ESA compliance applies to equity plans

Ontario courts consistently strike down termination clauses that fail to meet ESA minimums or that create ambiguity. Liggett confirms that this principle extends to RSUs and other equity awards.

If an RSU plan attempts to end vesting or entitlement without accounting for statutory notice or pay in lieu, it may not withstand judicial scrutiny.

Complexity is not a defence

The Court noted that the equity plan was difficult to navigate and required cross‑referencing multiple sections. This is common in global or investor‑driven equity plans used by Canadian subsidiaries of multinational companies.

However, complexity does not protect employers. Courts expect clarity, especially where employees may be giving up valuable rights.

A potential shift on the horizon

The decision sits alongside Wigdor v. Facebook Canada Ltd., which some view as taking a different approach to equity forfeiture. The Ontario Court of Appeal is scheduled to hear the Wigdor appeal in April 2026, and its ruling may provide further guidance on how equity plans interact with common‑law notice entitlements.

Until then, Liggett signals that courts will apply strict ESA‑based scrutiny to equity compensation provisions.

What employers should do now

The decision reinforces that RSU plans are not insulated from employment law risk. Employers should:

• review RSU and equity plan termination language for ESA compliance
• ensure the plan clearly explains what happens to equity awards upon termination
• avoid complex or ambiguous drafting that could mislead employees
• align equity plan language with employment agreements to ensure consistency.

A proactive review can help prevent costly disputes and ensure that equity‑based compensation remains enforceable.

Constitutional Reform Reduces the Standard Working Week

A major constitutional amendment has been published in Mexico, confirming a gradual reduction of the standard weekly working hours. The reform was officially released in the Federal Official Gazette on 3 March 2026 and introduces a phased transition to a 40‑hour work week.

Overview of the reform

The Political Constitution of the United Mexican States now establishes a 40‑hour working week as the national standard. Importantly, this reduction cannot result in lower wages or diminished social security benefits for employees.

The reform also increases the allowable overtime limit from nine to 12 hours per week. These hours may be distributed across up to four hours per day, for a maximum of four days per week, and must be paid at a double rate. Minors are expressly prohibited from working overtime.

Gradual implementation timeline

The reduction in weekly hours will occur progressively, decreasing by two hours each year on 1 January until the 40‑hour standard is reached. The schedule is as follows:

• 1 January 2027: 46 hours per week
• 1 January 2028: 44 hours per week
• 1 January 2029: 42 hours per week
• 1 January 2030: 40 hours per week

This phased approach is designed to give employers time to adjust operations and workforce planning.

Next steps for employers

Congress is required to amend the Federal Labor Law within 90 days to align statutory provisions with the new constitutional framework. Employers operating in Mexico should begin reviewing staffing models, shift structures, and overtime practices to ensure compliance as each phase takes effect.

NSW – New Long Service Leave Guidance Now in Force from 1 March 2026

NSW Industrial Relations has released long‑awaited updated guidance on the Long Service Leave Act 1955 (NSW), effective 1 March 2026. The guidance modernises the interpretation of the 70‑year‑old Act and clarifies how long service leave (LSL) should be accrued, calculated, paid and taken, with significant implications for employers – particularly those engaging casual or variable‑hours workers.

Continuous service for casual workers

The new guidance provides a clearer framework for determining whether a casual worker’s engagements form continuous service. Employers should assess:

• regularity of engagements
• time between engagements
• reasons for gaps in service.

Importantly:

Breaks up to or exceeding two months may not break continuity if they fall within statutory categories such as illness, injury, industrial disputes, or employer‑caused slackness of trade.

Employers are not expected to scrutinise every zero‑hour week – only departures from the worker’s established pattern of service.

Calculating ordinary pay

The “prescribed date” (the day before leave starts or employment ends) remains the reference point. Workers fall into two categories:

1. fixed ordinary‑time rate workers (e.g., salaried employees without bonuses)
2. workers with fluctuating or incentive‑based pay, including bonuses, higher‑duties allowances, or variable hours.

For the second category, the guidance introduces specific formulas for calculating LSL entitlements.

Calculating ordinary hours for variable‑hours workers

The guidance clarifies how to calculate ordinary hours for:

• casual workers
• part‑time workers who regularly exceed contracted hours
• workers with fluctuating rosters.

Employers must use formulas to determine both:

• ordinary remuneration at the prescribed date
• average weekly ordinary remuneration over the preceding five years.

Treatment of bonuses

A bonus must be included in LSL calculations if it forms part of a bonus or incentive scheme, even if not labelled as a “bonus.”

If the worker is eligible for the scheme on the prescribed date, they fall under the fluctuating‑pay category, and the bonus must be factored into the calculation.

Recognition of service beyond 15 years

The previous guidance required workers to complete full years of service beyond 15 years before additional LSL accrued.

The new guidance confirms that all service beyond 15 years counts, including partial years (e.g., 15 years and 11 months).

Transitional approach

The guidance is not retrospective and does not affect past cases or previous resolutions.
For the first six months, NSW Industrial Relations will focus on education and support, not enforcement. Inspectors will contact employers with active cases to explain any changes.

What employers should do now

Employers should take the following steps:

• review payroll systems to ensure they can apply the updated formulas, especially for fluctuating‑hours and bonus‑eligible workers
• assess record‑keeping practices for casual workers to ensure patterns of service and reasons for breaks are documented
• audit bonus and incentive schemes to determine whether they affect LSL calculations
• prepare for transitional engagement with NSW Industrial Relations inspectors.

These updates provide much‑needed clarity but also require employers to adjust systems and processes to ensure compliance.

Return to Office Mandates – Key Points for Employers

Recent Fair Work Commission (FWC) decisions show that employers can require staff to return to the office, but only when they follow the Fair Work Act’s flexible work rules precisely.

When employers can require office attendance

In the Johnson v PaperCut decision, the FWC confirmed that a direction to work in the office is lawful and reasonable when it aligns with company policy, is consistent with the employment contract, and the employee has not made a valid flexible work request under section 65. The employee’s refusal to attend the office justified dismissal.

Takeaway: If no section 65 request is involved, employers retain strong authority to set attendance expectations.

When employees’ rights limit employer mandates

Employees eligible under section 65 (such as carers, parents of young children, or people with disabilities) can request flexible work, including working from home. A refusal is only valid if the employer discusses the request, genuinely tries to reach agreement, considers the impact on the employee, and relies on evidence based “reasonable business grounds.” Missing any step makes the refusal unlawful.

Case outcomes

Louise v Metcash: The employee sought remote work due to her child’s medical condition. The employer rejected the request without providing evidence to support its position. The FWC ordered the employer to grant full remote work.

Collins v Intersystems: The employee’s request lacked a clear link to caring responsibilities, and the employer had strong evidence supporting in office work. The FWC dismissed the claim.

Practical guidance for employers

If no section 65 request is made, ensure policies and contracts support the return to office direction and communicate expectations clearly. If a section 65 request is made, follow the statutory process carefully, require employees to explain the connection between their circumstances and the request, document evidence for any refusal, and avoid generic justifications.

Supreme Court Strikes Down Age Limit for Adopted Children: Maternity Benefits Now Apply Regardless of Child’s Age

The Supreme Court of India has ruled that the three-month age limit for adopted children under Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020 is unconstitutional, holding that it violates the rights to equality and personal liberty under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The Court has extended 12 weeks of maternity benefit to all adoptive mothers, regardless of the age of the adopted child.

Background

The case (Hamsaanandini Nanduri v. Union of India) challenged the rule that only mothers adopting a child below three months were entitled to maternity benefits.

The petitioner argued that:

The age limit was arbitrary and had no rational connection to the purpose of maternity benefits.

Adoption processes under the Juvenile Justice Act and CARA Regulations typically take two to four months, making the three-month limit practically unworkable.

The rule violated adoptive mothers’ reproductive autonomy and children’s right to care.

Court’s key findings

1. Maternity Benefits Are a Fundamental Right

The Court held that maternity protection is a basic human right, grounded in international conventions and Indian jurisprudence.

For adoptive mothers, two essential components remain:

• time to build an emotional bond
• time to support the child’s integration into the family.

These needs do not depend on the child’s age.

2. Age Limit Violates Article 14 (Equality)

The Court found no intelligible differentia between mothers adopting children below or above three months.

The purpose of maternity benefits extends beyond childbirth to nurturing, bonding, and caregiving, which are equally necessary for older adopted children.

The Court also noted that:

• children with disabilities often wait longer for adoption
• single adoptive mothers face heightened caregiving burdens.

The age limit therefore created unjustifiable discrimination.

3. Age Limit Violates Article 21 (Personal Liberty)

Adoption is a legitimate exercise of reproductive autonomy.

By denying benefits to mothers adopting older children, the law interfered with:

• decisional autonomy
• dignity
• the child’s best interests.

The Court emphasised that caregiving needs do not disappear after three months.

4. Provision Was Unworkable in Practice

The statutory adoption process typically takes 71–133+ days, meaning most children are already older than three months by the time they are legally free for adoption.

A welfare provision that cannot be meaningfully used becomes “a mere formality on paper.”

Operative directions

The Court read down Section 60(4) to state:

“A woman who legally adopts a child or a commissioning mother shall be entitled to maternity benefit for a period of 12 weeks from the date the child is handed over to her.”

It also urged the Government to introduce paternity leave as a social‑security benefit, noting that caregiving should not fall solely on mothers.

Key takeaways for employers

Employers in India should:

• update internal policies to provide 12 weeks of maternity benefit to all adoptive mothers, regardless of the child’s age
• ensure HR teams understand the revised entitlement
• review leave policies to ensure alignment with the Court’s interpretation
• monitor potential legislative updates on paternity leave, which the Court has encouraged.

KiwiSaver Changes Coming Into Effect on 1 April 2026

The New Zealand government is continuing its phased updates to the KiwiSaver scheme, with the next round of changes taking effect on 1 April 2026. These adjustments follow earlier amendments introduced from July 2025 and will impact both employers and employees.

Increase to the default contribution rate

From 1 April 2026, the default KiwiSaver contribution rate will rise from 3% to 3.5% for both employers and employees.

This new rate will apply to all pay processed after 1 April, even if the pay period spans dates before and after the change.

Employees who wish to continue contributing at the pre‑April rate may apply to Inland Revenue (IRD) for a temporary rate reduction. If approved, IRD will issue written confirmation that employees must provide to their employer.

Temporary reductions can apply for three to 12 months, and employees may apply multiple times. Employers may choose, but are not required, to match the reduced rate.

Employer contributions for 16 and 17 year olds

From 1 April 2026, employers will be required to make compulsory KiwiSaver contributions for eligible employees aged 16 and 17.

Previously, compulsory employer contributions applied only from age 18.

Future changes already scheduled

This is not the final adjustment to the KiwiSaver scheme. The default contribution rate will increase again on 1 April 2028, rising from 3.5% to 4%.

What employers should do now

To prepare for the April 2026 changes, employers should:

• update payroll systems to reflect the new 3.5% default rate
• ensure processes are in place to handle IRD‑approved temporary rate reductions
• confirm that employer contributions will be applied to eligible 16 and 17‑year‑old employees
• communicate upcoming changes to staff ahead of the April transition.

These updates form part of the government’s broader effort to strengthen long‑term retirement savings across the workforce.

Retirement Age Rising to 64 and Re‑Employment Age to 69 from 1 July 2026

Singapore has confirmed that the statutory retirement age will increase to 64 and the re‑employment age to 69 with effect from 1 July 2026. This marks the next step toward the national target of raising these thresholds to 65 and 70 respectively by 2030.

Policy direction and rationale

Manpower Minister Dr Tan See Leng emphasised that the changes aim to provide senior workers with greater security, flexibility, and continued employment opportunities, while helping employers retain experienced talent in a tight labour market.

Senior Minister of State for Manpower Dr Koh Poh Koon noted that the revised ages also help shape social norms around ageing and work, giving seniors confidence to extend their careers and offering employers clearer long‑term workforce planning parameters.

Re‑employment uptake remains strong: over 90% of eligible older employees continue to receive re‑employment offers. Labour‑force participation among residents in their 50s and 60s has also risen over the past five years.

Extended support measures for employers

To help employers adjust to the higher age thresholds, the Government has extended key support schemes until December 2027, including:

• senior employment credit – wage offsets for hiring senior workers, with higher support for older cohorts
• part‑time re‑employment grant – support for employers offering suitable part‑time or flexible arrangements to senior workers.

CPF contribution enhancements from 2027

• To strengthen retirement adequacy, CPF contribution rates will increase from 2027:
• +1.5 percentage points for employees aged above 55 to 60
• +1 percentage point for employees aged above 60 to 65.

These adjustments align with the recommendations of the Tripartite Workgroup on Older Workers. To ease cost pressures, the CPF Transition Offset will be extended until December 2027, covering 50% of the 2027 increase in employer CPF contributions.

Additional CPF‑related updates include:

• new CPF retirement‑sum levels for cohorts beyond 2027 to be announced later this year
• a one‑off top‑up of up to S$1,500 for eligible Singaporeans aged 50+ with lower CPF balances (Budget 2026)
• a new low‑cost life‑cycle investment scheme to be launched in H1 2028, offering simplified, long‑term investment options with gradual de‑risking.

Tripartite workgroup on senior employment

The Workgroup continues to advance initiatives supporting career longevity. Workforce Singapore (WSG) has piloted targeted career‑guidance programmes for workers in their 50s and 60s, with plans for expansion.

Employers are encouraged to engage employees in structured discussions on:

• job redesign
• skills development
• future career planning.

The Government is also exploring more integrated support models, including a proposed centre for career longevity. The Workgroup’s full report is expected in H2 2026.

Key takeaways for employers

Employers should begin preparing for the upcoming changes by:

• updating internal policies to reflect the new retirement age (64) and re‑employment age (69) from 1 July 2026
• assessing eligibility for the extended Senior Employment Credit and Part‑Time Re‑Employment Grant
• planning for CPF contribution increases from 2027 and utilising the CPF Transition Offset
• introducing structured career‑planning conversations with older employees
• considering job redesign and flexible work options to support longer, sustainable careers.

These changes reinforce Singapore’s long‑term commitment to age‑inclusive employment and the continued participation of senior workers in the labour force.

Salary Threshold Increases for Work Passes Announced

Singapore has confirmed a series of upcoming increases to salary thresholds for key work pass categories. The changes will affect quota calculations for Work Permits as well as eligibility for Employment Passes (EPs) and S Passes, with phased implementation beginning in mid‑2026.

Local Qualifying Salary (LQS) increase

The Local Qualifying Salary — used to determine how many local employees count toward a company’s Work Permit and S Pass quota — will rise from SGD 1,600 to SGD 1,800 on 1 July 2026.

Employers must pay at least the LQS to all local workers who are not covered by progressive wage requirements.

Employment pass thresholds

From 1 January 2027, the minimum qualifying monthly salary for new EP applications will increase to:

• SGD 6,000 for employers outside the financial services sector
• SGD 6,600 for employers in the financial services sector.

These thresholds will apply to EP renewals from 1 January 2028, and qualifying salaries for older applicants will rise proportionately with age.

S Pass thresholds

From 1 January 2027, the minimum qualifying salary for new S Pass applications will increase to:

• SGD 3,600 for employers outside the financial services sector
• SGD 4,000 for employers in the financial services sector.
• These thresholds will also apply to S Pass renewals from 1 January 2028.

Purpose of the changes

The adjustments are intended to maintain the quality of EP and S Pass holders as local wages rise and to ensure that foreign workforce policies remain aligned with Singapore’s broader labour market objectives.

What employers should do now

Employers relying on foreign talent should begin preparing for the new thresholds by:

• reviewing upcoming hiring plans and budgeting for higher salary requirements
• assessing renewal timelines for existing EP and S Pass holders
• ensuring compliance with LQS obligations for local employees
• updating workforce planning models to reflect quota and eligibility changes.

These changes will have a material impact on workforce costs and planning, particularly for employers with a high proportion of foreign staff.

CJEU Clarifies How Third‑Country Work Affects the 25% Rule for Social Security

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has resolved a long‑standing question about how to calculate the “substantial activity” threshold for cross‑border workers. In a December 2025 ruling, the Court confirmed that work performed in non‑EU countries must be counted when assessing whether a worker performs 25% of their activity in their country of residence.

Background to the case

The case involved a German‑resident employee working full‑time for a Swiss employer. His work was split between Germany, Switzerland, and various third countries. German authorities applied only the EU‑ and Switzerland‑based working time when assessing the 25% threshold, concluding that German social security applied.
The employee challenged this, arguing that all working time — including time spent in third countries — should be included.

The Court’s ruling

The CJEU ruled that third‑country work must be included when calculating whether a worker performs a “substantial part” of their activity in their state of residence under Article 14(8) of Regulation 987/2009.

The Court emphasised that:

• The regulation refers to “all the activities” of the worker, not only those performed within the EU.
• Excluding third‑country work would create a “legal fiction” that distorts the worker’s real situation.
• Including worldwide activity does not undermine the single‑legislation principle, as only one Member State’s system will apply in the end.

Applying this approach, the employee’s German work represented only 16% of his total activity — below the 25% threshold — meaning Swiss social security legislation applied.

Why this matters for employers

This ruling settles a point on which national authorities had taken inconsistent positions. Employers with internationally mobile staff must now ensure that all working time — including time spent in non‑EU countries — is factored into social security assessments.

This may lead to shifts in which Member State’s legislation applies, particularly for workers who previously appeared to meet the 25% threshold when only EU‑based work was counted.

Practical steps for employers

Organisations with cross‑border or globally mobile employees should:

• Review working‑time patterns for employees who split their time between EU, Swiss, and third‑country locations.
• Reassess which Member State’s social security legislation applies in light of the ruling.
• Ensure HR and payroll teams understand that worldwide activity must now be included in the calculation.
• Prepare for potential changes in contribution obligations where the 25% threshold is no longer met.

This decision provides long‑awaited clarity and will be highly relevant for employers managing complex international work arrangements.

New Flexible Working Time Rules Set to Take Effect in 2026

Belgium is preparing to implement a major package of working‑time reforms aimed at increasing flexibility for employers. A draft act submitted to Parliament on 3 February 2026 is expected to be adopted with minimal changes and will enter into force 10 days after publication in the Belgian Official Journal – likely in the coming weeks.

New option: general working‑time frameworks

Under current rules, employers must list all full‑time work schedules in their work regulations, and changes require works council approval or a formal staff consultation.

The draft act introduces a more flexible alternative:

• employers may choose to include only a general framework in the work regulations, rather than detailed schedules
• the framework must specify working days, daily time windows, and minimum/maximum daily and weekly hours
• individual working hours can then be agreed directly with employees within that framework.

Employers may keep their existing detailed schedules if preferred.

Easier process for amending work regulations

If agreement cannot be reached at company level, the joint committee currently needs a 75% majority of both employer and employee representatives to approve changes.

Under the draft act:

• the joint committee may approve changes if all representatives of at least one trade union vote in favour
• the percentage of workers affiliated with that union is irrelevant
• this significantly lowers the threshold for introducing new schedules.

Reduced minimum weekly hours for part‑time work

The minimum weekly working time for part‑time employees will be reduced from one‑third of full‑time hours to one‑tenth.

The minimum daily block of three hours remains unchanged.

Abolition of the general prohibition on night work

Belgian law currently prohibits night work (20:00–06:00) except in specific circumstances, often requiring a company‑level collective bargaining agreement.

The draft act:

• abolishes the general prohibition, allowing employers to introduce night work subject to procedural compliance
• for the distribution sector and related industries, social inspection may authorise night work without requiring a collective bargaining agreement.

Evening work premiums in the distribution sector

For employees in the distribution sector hired from 1 April 2026, night‑work premiums will not apply to work performed between 20:00 and 23:00.

However, employers may reintroduce premiums for these hours through a collective bargaining agreement signed on or after that date.

Increased voluntary overtime

A separate draft act submitted on 10 February 2026 will:

• increase voluntary overtime limits to 360 hours per year (or 450 hours in hospitality)
• introduce a favourable tax and social security regime for the first 240 hours, with:
  • no tax withholding
  • no social security contributions
  • no overtime premium (50% or 100%).
• extend the validity of voluntary overtime agreements from six months to one year, with automatic renewal unless terminated with one month’s notice.

This regime applies to part‑time employees only in cases of temporary increased workload, unless they already had a voluntary overtime agreement in place on 1 April 2026.

What employers should do now

With the reforms expected to take effect shortly, employers should:

• review work regulations and consider shifting to a general framework model
• prepare for easier introduction of new schedules via joint committee approval
• assess part‑time arrangements in light of the reduced minimum weekly hours
• evaluate whether night work or extended evening operations could now be implemented
• update overtime policies and agreements to align with the new voluntary overtime rules.

These changes represent one of the most significant modernisations of Belgian working‑time law in recent years.

2026 Enforcement Campaign Targets Misuse of Independent Contractor Status

France has launched a major nationwide enforcement campaign for 2026 focused on the misclassification of workers as independent contractors. The initiative signals a renewed commitment by French authorities to scrutinise freelance arrangements, particularly in sectors where false self‑employment has historically been prevalent.

Scope of the 2026 campaign

The campaign is being led by the French Labour Inspectorate, working alongside social security authorities (URSSAF) and tax authorities.

The enforcement effort will prioritise industries with high rates of platform work, subcontracting, and freelance‑based service delivery. Authorities have indicated that they will be looking closely at:

• digital platforms
• logistics and delivery services
• IT and consulting
• construction and maintenance
• media, creative, and events sectors.

The campaign will involve targeted audits, on‑site inspections, and coordinated investigations across agencies.

Focus on the legal test for employment status

French law applies a well‑established test centred on subordination — meaning the worker performs tasks under the authority, direction, and control of the company.

Indicators include:

• Fixed working hours or schedules
• Integration into company teams or workflows
• Use of company tools or equipment
• Lack of genuine autonomy
• Exclusive or near‑exclusive service to one client

Where these elements are present, authorities are likely to conclude that the individual is, in reality, an employee.

Consequences of misclassification

If a contractor is reclassified as an employee, the company may face:

• retroactive social security contributions
• penalties and late‑payment surcharges
• employment law liabilities, including notice, paid leave, and severance
• potential criminal sanctions in cases of intentional fraud.

Authorities have signalled that they will take a strict approach where companies have relied heavily on contractor models without adequate safeguards.

What employers should do now

With enforcement activity already underway, companies operating in France should:

• review all contractor and freelance arrangements
• assess whether working conditions reflect genuine independence
• ensure contracts accurately reflect the reality of the working relationship
• avoid managerial practices that resemble employee supervision
• prepare documentation demonstrating autonomy and lack of subordination.

Businesses using platform‑based or flexible workforce models should be especially proactive, as these arrangements are likely to attract heightened scrutiny.

Court of Appeal Clarifies Limits on Employee Subject Access Requests

The French Court of Appeal has confirmed that employees cannot use GDPR subject access rights to obtain full copies of their work emails or business files simply because their name or email address appears in them. The decision provides welcome clarity for employers facing increasingly broad and sometimes tactical DSARs.

Background to the case

An accounting inspector was dismissed for professional incompetence. After his dismissal, he submitted a subject access request seeking all emails sent or received from his work account, as well as all files stored on his work computer.

The employer refused, and the employee argued that Article 15 GDPR entitled him to the full contents of these documents.

The Court of Appeal rejected the claim.

What the Court decided

The Court held that the right of access does not entitle an employee to copies of entire email chains or business documents where the only personal data involved is their name or email address.

The Court emphasised that:

• The purpose of Article 15 is to allow individuals to verify how their personal data is processed, check accuracy, and request rectification or deletion.
• It is not intended to serve as a litigation disclosure tool.
• Employees already have access to their own work emails in the ordinary course of employment, and identifying information alone does not justify wholesale disclosure.

The Court found that the employer had complied with its obligations and that the employee’s request went beyond what the GDPR requires.

Alignment with UK’s Information Commissioners Office (ICO) and EDPB guidance

Although the ruling is French, it aligns closely with existing UK ICO guidance and the European Data Protection Board’s interpretation of Article 15.

Both authorities confirm that:

• Simply being copied into an email does not make the entire email the requester’s personal data.
• Employers may confirm the existence of emails and the identifying information they contain without providing full copies.
• The obligation to provide a “copy” refers to the personal data itself, not the full underlying documents.
• This consistency strengthens employers’ ability to push back on overly broad DSARs.

Practical implications for employers

The decision reinforces that employers must still assess whether emails or files contain substantive personal data about the requester. Where they do, and where context is needed to make that data intelligible, disclosure may be required.

However, the ruling provides helpful authority for refusing DSARs that seek:

• Entire inboxes
• Full document repositories
• Broad categories of emails where the requester is only mentioned in passing

For employers dealing with DSARs following grievances, dismissals or disputes, this clarification is particularly valuable.

Draft Pay Transparency Law Goes Further Than the EU Directive

France has released a preliminary draft law implementing the EU Pay Transparency Directive — but it goes well beyond the EU’s minimum requirements. The draft lowers reporting thresholds, expands employee‑representative involvement, introduces stricter remediation procedures, and creates a tougher sanctions regime. Employers operating in France will face a significantly more demanding compliance landscape.

Key differences from the EU Directive

France treats the Directive as a “floor, not a ceiling”, introducing stricter obligations, including:

• reporting threshold lowered to 50 employees (EU standard: 100)
• mandatory pay ranges in job advertisements, with fines of €450 per breach
• a multi‑stage remediation process replacing the Directive’s single joint pay assessment
• penalties up to 1% of total payroll, rising to 2% for repeat offences
• a potentially lower pay‑gap trigger for corrective action (below 5%, to be set by decree).

Some provisions will take effect immediately once the law is enacted.

Reporting obligations

France introduces a tiered system:

Employers with 50–99 employees

• Must report seven indicators (details to follow by decree).
• Must inform the Social and Economic Committee (CSE) of methodology and results.
• Must implement corrective measures if gaps exceed the threshold.

Employers with 100+ employees

• Must consult the CSE (not just inform it).
• CSE opinions must be submitted to labour authorities.
• Employees and representatives may request clarification on pay gaps.
• Full remediation process applies.

Employers with 250+ employees

• Annual reporting on all indicators.

Multi‑stage remediation process

France replaces the Directive’s single joint pay assessment with a four‑step process:

1. first declaration: Employer must justify gaps or begin negotiations
2. six‑month correction period: Implement measures and report updated indicators
3. second declaration: If gaps remain, conduct a joint assessment with employee representatives
4. twelve‑month deadline: File a collective agreement or action plan with authorities.

This creates a more prescriptive and administratively heavy process than the EU framework.

Mandatory pay ranges in job advertisements

France requires pay ranges to be included directly in job ads.

If no written ad exists, the information must be provided in writing before or during the interview.

Employers are also prohibited from asking candidates about pay history.

Ban on pay secrecy clauses

Once the law is enacted, employment contracts may no longer include clauses preventing employees from disclosing their pay.

Employers should audit existing contracts and templates.

Categorisation and “work of equal value”

France expands the definition of equal value to include:

• non‑technical skills (soft skills)
• working conditions.

Categorisation must follow a hierarchy:

• company‑level agreement
• branch‑level agreement
• employer’s unilateral decision (after CSE consultation), valid for three years.

Employee right to request pay information

Employees may request:

• their own pay level
• average pay by gender for their job category.

Employers must respond within a timeframe to be set by decree.

Where categories are too small, employers must explain why data cannot be disclosed.

Penalties

France introduces a robust sanctions regime:

• up to 1% of total payroll for major violations
• up to 2% for repeat offences
• €450 fixed penalties for specific breaches (e.g., non‑compliant job ads, failure to respond to information requests)
• potential exclusion from public tenders (under discussion).

Timeline

Immediate effect upon enactment

• Pay ranges in job ads.
• Ban on pay secrecy clauses.

Within one year

• Most other provisions enter into force.

By 1 June 2030

• Companies with fewer than 150 employees must report the pay‑gap indicator by employee category.

What employers should do now

Employers operating in France should begin preparing by:

• reviewing recruitment practices and updating job‑ad templates
• auditing employment contracts for pay‑secrecy clauses
• assessing reporting obligations, especially for companies with 50–99 employees
• establishing or updating job‑categorisation systems
• preparing for expanded CSE consultation requirements
• monitoring forthcoming decrees for thresholds and deadlines.

France’s draft law represents one of the most ambitious implementations of the EU Pay Transparency Directive and will require early, structured preparation.

Parental Leave Extended to 14 Years of Age from 2026

Italy has expanded parental‑leave eligibility for employees, allowing leave to be taken until a child reaches 14 years of age. The change applies to parental‑leave events occurring from 1 January 2026 and is accompanied by updated INPS guidance and system adjustments.

What has changed

INPS has confirmed that, from 2026:

• employees may use parental leave up to the child’s 14th birthday, an increase from the previous 12‑year limit
• for adoption or foster care, leave may be used within 14 years of the child’s entry into the family
• the extension applies only to employees.

What has not changed

The rules remain unchanged for:

• parents under the separate management system (Gestione separata) — still limited to 12 years
• self‑employed workers — leave remains available only within the first year of the child’s life or entry into the family.

Updated inps application process

INPS has updated its online application system to reflect the new rules.

If employees were unable to submit requests between 1 January 2026 and the system update, they may now file retroactive applications for leave already taken.

Practical impact for employers

The extension significantly improves flexibility for working parents but also requires employers to:

• monitor parental‑leave requests for older children, including those aged 12–14
• ensure HR and payroll systems reflect the new eligibility window
• communicate the updated rules to employees
• track retroactive applications submitted after the INPS system update.

The reform is part of Italy’s broader effort to strengthen work–life balance and support families.

Draft Amendments Introduce New Definition and Obligations on Workplace Harassment (Mobbing)

The Polish Council of Ministers has approved a draft bill that would significantly revise the Labour Code’s provisions on workplace harassment (mobbing). The proposal modernises the definition, strengthens employer obligations, and introduces new compensation rules.

Updated definition of mobbing

The draft bill replaces the current definition with a new focus on persistence. Under the proposal:

• Harassment will be defined by repeated, recurring, or continuous conduct.
• The existing requirement that behaviour be of “long duration” will be removed.
• The requirement to show negative effects — such as a reduction in professional usefulness — will also be removed.
• The assessment will be based on a “reasonable victim” standard, distinguishing genuine harassment from conduct perceived disproportionately.

This shift is intended to make the definition clearer and more practical, while avoiding overly subjective claims.

Compensation and recourse

The bill introduces a minimum compensation level of six times the minimum wage for victims of mobbing.

It also creates a right of recourse against the individual perpetrator, allowing employers who pay compensation to seek reimbursement from the harasser.

Expanded employer obligations

The proposal imposes new, explicit duties on employers to:

• Prevent, detect, and respond to mobbing
• Provide support to victims
• Establish clear rules and procedures addressing harassment

Importantly, these obligations will apply even to small employers with at least nine employees, who will be required to include anti‑mobbing rules in work regulations or a formal notice.

What employers should do now

Although the bill is still in draft form, employers should begin preparing by:

• Reviewing existing anti‑harassment policies and procedures
• Ensuring reporting channels and investigation processes are robust
• Training managers on the new “persistence” and “reasonable victim” standards
• Planning updates to internal regulations to meet the new requirements

The proposed changes signal a more proactive and structured approach to preventing workplace harassment in Poland.

Labour Inspectorate to Gain Power to Reclassify Civil Law Contracts by Mid‑2026

Poland is moving ahead with major reforms that will allow the State Labour Inspection (PIP) to unilaterally reclassify civil law contracts – such as B2B service agreements and mandate contracts – into employment contracts. The bill has passed both houses of Parliament and is expected to enter into force around June 2026, giving organisations a final window to prepare.

Legislative status

The Sejm passed the amendment on 11 March 2026, and the Senate adopted it without changes on 12 March 2026.

The only remaining steps are the President’s signature and publication in the Journal of Laws.

The Act will take effect three months after publication, likely June 2026.

What the new law will allow

PIP will be empowered to issue administrative decisions reclassifying civil law contracts into employment contracts where the relationship displays the dominant characteristics of employment under Article 22 §1 of the Labour Code.

Before issuing a decision, PIP must:

• allow both parties to present their position order the removal of any identified infringements.
• order the removal of any identified infringements.

Reclassification decisions will apply prospectively and become enforceable after the appeal deadline or a final labour court judgment, except in limited cases where immediate enforceability is permitted.

Key features of the new regime

Opportunity for parties to present their position – Parties may comment before PIP issues an order, although their views are not binding on the Inspectorate. 

Assessment based on dominant employment characteristics

The law clarifies that reclassification applies where employment‑like features prevail, though it still provides no detailed criteria for determining dominance.

Consideration of the parties’ will

PIP must consider the parties’ stated intentions, except where those intentions:

• contradict the law
• violate principles of social coexistence
• aim to circumvent legal obligations.

Limits on immediate enforceability

Immediate enforceability may only be granted in exceptional circumstances – such as protecting health, life, or the national economy – and only for individuals under special protection against dismissal. This is a significant narrowing from earlier drafts

Court security measures

Courts may refuse security only where the facts make it unlikely that the contract is, in reality, an employment contract. Applications must be reviewed within three days.

Voluntary conversion and liability relief

Entities that voluntarily convert civil law contracts into employment contracts will receive 12 months of liability relief, extended from the originally proposed six months.

What employers should do now

With the law close to finalisation, organisations using B2B, mandate, or other civil law contracts should:

• review contract wording and actual working practices
• assess whether relationships display employment‑like features
• update documentation and processes to reduce reclassification risk
• prepare for potential administrative proceedings and appeals.

This is the last practical opportunity to prepare before the new regime takes effect.

Corporate Criminal Liability Set to Expand Under the Crime and Policing Bill

The Crime and Policing Bill has progressed through the House of Lords committee stage, and the current draft includes clause 213 — a provision that would make organisations criminally liable whenever a senior manager commits any offence while acting within the actual or apparent scope of their authority. With the clause surviving this far into the legislative process, it is no longer realistic to treat the proposal as theoretical. Its breadth raises practical and conceptual challenges for businesses.

What Clause 213 would do

Clause 213 would attribute criminal liability to an organisation if a senior manager commits an offence in the course of their actual or apparent authority.

The definition of “senior manager” is functional, not title‑based. It covers individuals who play a significant role in decision‑making or in managing or organising a substantial part of the organisation’s activities.

This approach already applies to certain economic crimes under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023. Clause 213 would extend the same model to all criminal offences.

Why this is now a live issue

The Bill’s progress signals that reform is moving beyond policy discussion and into practical reality. Clause 213 appears in the latest published text and has already undergone detailed line‑by‑line scrutiny in the Lords committee stage — typically the point at which major structural changes are made.

Although amendments remain possible at the Lords report stage (from 25 February 2026) and later parliamentary stages, the direction of travel is clear. Businesses should now plan on the assumption that some form of senior‑manager attribution for all offences is likely to become law.

Practical implications

The policy intention is to improve accountability for serious wrongdoing by influential decision‑makers. However, the clause is not limited to serious offences, economic crime, or conduct that benefits the organisation. On its face, it applies to any criminal offence.

This breadth creates edge cases where corporate liability may appear disconnected from the underlying policy aim. Examples include licensing breaches at corporate events, marketing activities that inadvertently obstruct public highways, or safety‑related offences arising from corporate hospitality. While these scenarios may not be enforcement priorities, they illustrate how widely the clause could operate.

More importantly, the same attribution pathway would apply to conduct that enforcement agencies will prioritise — such as modern slavery, human trafficking, cartel behaviour, data protection offences, and computer misuse. In these areas, the risk of organisational liability becomes very real.

Three features of the clause drive the greatest concern:

• It applies to any offence, without limitation.
• Liability can arise from apparent authority, not just actual authority.
• There is no “reasonable procedures” defence, unlike existing failure‑to‑prevent regimes.

What companies should do now

Given the Bill’s momentum, organisations should begin preparing in ways that are proportionate and low‑regret, particularly as many will already be adapting to the senior‑manager attribution model under the 2023 economic crime reforms.

Practical steps include:

• Monitoring amendments at the Lords report stage and assessing how the clause would affect the business if enacted.
• Mapping who qualifies as a “senior manager” across the organisation, including regional and functional leaders.
• Reviewing delegations and approval processes for higher‑risk operational decisions, especially those involving marketing, events, site operations and public‑facing activities.
• Strengthening escalation routes so senior managers know when to seek legal input.
• Integrating potential changes into existing training programmes.

If clause 213 becomes law in its current form, many organisations will also need to update incident response and investigation protocols, as corporate exposure may arise earlier and across a wider range of scenarios than under the current economic‑crime‑only regime.

Government Launches Consultation on Strengthening Tipping Laws

The UK government has opened a new consultation aimed at tightening the legal framework around tipping. Although new rules were introduced in 2024 requiring employers to pass on all qualifying tips to workers, the government believes further protections are needed.

Current legal position

Since October 2024, employers must ensure that all qualifying tips, gratuities and service charges are paid to workers in full. A statutory Code of Practice also came into force at the same time, setting out expectations for fair allocation and transparency.

What the Government proposes to change

Section 14 of the Employment Rights Act 2025 will introduce a new requirement for employers to consult with staff before creating their first tipping policy and whenever that policy is reviewed.

If an employer recognises a union, consultation must take place with that union. If not, consultation must occur with elected worker representatives, or — f none exist — the workers who will be affected.

The written tipping policy must be reviewed with those representatives at least once every three years and must be accessible to all workers.

The government is also considering updates to the statutory Code of Practice to improve clarity and practical guidance.

What the consultation seeks

The government is asking employers to provide information on:

• Whether they consulted workers when creating their current tipping policy
• How tips are allocated, including factors such as job role, performance or team‑based distribution
• How tips are shared with agency workers, part‑time staff, zero‑hours workers and other categories
• Whether new processes will be needed to meet the consultation requirement and how long implementation will take
• The challenges employers expect to face in reaching agreement with staff
• How employers ensure workers are aware of the tipping policy

Feedback is also sought on how the Code of Practice could be improved to make it clearer and more useful.

Timeline for changes

The government intends to publish a full response and an updated Code of Practice later in 2026. The new legal requirements and revised Code are expected to take effect in October 2026.

The consultation closes on 1 April 2026.

Home Office Issues Major Changes to Sponsor Guidance: Significant New Duties for Employers

The Home Office has released substantial updates to the sponsor‑licence guidance (March 2026), introducing new sponsor obligations, expanding grounds for enforcement, and tightening rules around salary, job eligibility, and right‑to‑work compliance. Employers should expect a more assertive compliance environment and prepare for increased scrutiny.

A tougher compliance stance

The updated guidance emphasises that holding a sponsor licence is a privilege, not a right. Key changes include:

• the Home Office may now refuse or revoke a licence based on “reasonable suspicion”, not proven breaches
• administrative errors alone may justify suspension or revocation
• sponsors must read all parts of the guidance and stay up to date with changes — a significant obligation given the volume and frequency of updates.

Employers should designate a responsible person to monitor updates and notify Key Personnel.

New duty: inform sponsored workers of their employment rights

Sponsors must now:

• inform sponsored workers of their employment rights
• retain evidence that this information has been provided.

This applies to existing sponsored workers, not just new hires. Information may be provided through:

• contracts and secondment agreements
• policies and staff handbooks
• training sessions (with attendance records)
• additional information sheets covering rights not typically included in policies (e.g., rest breaks, minimum wage, pensions auto‑enrolment, trade union rights).

New concept: “eligible roles”

The previous “genuine vacancy” test has been replaced with a broader requirement that the role must be an eligible role, meaning it must:

• exist (or be reasonably expected to exist) when the CoS is assigned
• require the duties and hours stated on the CoS
• meet skill, salary, NMW and Working Time Regulations requirements
• be appropriate to the business’s model and scale
• continue to meet these requirements throughout sponsorship.

A mismatch between the job description, SOC code, CoS details, and actual duties is now a mandatory ground for licence revocation.

Salary and pay‑period requirements

Significant changes apply to salary compliance:

• from 8 April 2026, sponsors must ensure the required salary is met in every pay period, not averaged over the year
• salaries must also meet the hourly going‑rate threshold for each period
• for variable‑hours workers, salary must equal 17/52 of the annual threshold over a 17‑week rolling period.
• Sponsors must monitor hours and pay closely, especially in sectors with irregular working patterns (e.g., care, hospitality).
• Artificially inflating salaries to meet thresholds is now a mandatory ground for refusal or revocation.

Accuracy of CoS information

The guidance reinforces that:

• the SOC code, job description, and sponsorship duration must accurately reflect the role
• any role change must be reported within 10 working days
• if the role moves into a different SOC code, a new CoS and a change‑of‑employment application are required.
• Failure to report changes is a mandatory revocation ground.

Right‑to‑work checks

The updated guidance clarifies:

• sponsors must evidence right‑to‑work checks for all employees, not just sponsored workers
• where a sponsored worker is employed by a related organisation, that organisation must conduct the check – but the sponsor must retain a cope
• even for self‑employed sponsored workers, sponsors must carry out and retain evidence of right‑to‑work checks.

What HR teams should do now

Employers should take immediate steps to prepare:

• conduct a sponsor‑compliance audit
• review all sponsored workers’ roles, duties, SOC codes, and salaries
• ensure systems flag pay variations and monitor variable‑hours workers
• update onboarding materials and provide employment‑rights information to all sponsored workers
• train Key Personnel and line managers on new requirements
• assign responsibility for monitoring Home Office updates
• review job adverts and descriptions for consistency with CoS details.

These changes significantly raise the compliance bar and increase the risk of enforcement action for even minor errors.

New Mandatory Gender Pay Gap and Menopause Action Plans from 2027

The UK Employment Rights Act received Royal Assent on 18 December 2025, introducing significant changes to gender pay gap reporting for large employers. From 1 January 2027, employers with 250 or more employees will be required not only to report pay gap data but also to publish mandatory gender pay gap and menopause action plans.

Current reporting requirements

Private‑sector employers must already report annually on:

• Mean and median gender pay gaps
• Mean and median bonus gaps
• Proportion of men and women receiving bonuses
• Pay quartile distribution

The snapshot date for private employers remains 5 April each year.

What will change from 1 January 2027

Employers with 250+ employees will need to publish:

Gender Pay Gap Action Plans

These must include:

• Evidence‑based analysis explaining the causes of any pay gap
• Practical, targeted steps the employer will take to reduce inequalities
• Details of actions taken in the previous 12 months

Menopause Action Plans

Employers must outline:

• How they support employees experiencing menopause
• Measures to improve workplace conditions and retention
• How menopause support integrates with broader equality strategies

Menopause plans may be included within a wider equality action plan and do not need to be published separately.

Voluntary action plans available from April 2026

Although mandatory requirements begin in 2027, employers may voluntarily introduce equality action plans — including gender pay gap and menopause action plans — from April 2026.

This early adoption option allows employers to prepare ahead of the statutory deadline and demonstrate proactive commitment to workplace equality.

Additional reporting on outsourced workers

While employers must continue to report only on their own employees, they will also be required to identify the providers of contract workers and reference those providers’ gender pay gaps in their reports.

Wider context – growing focus on pay transparency

The UK changes align with broader European trends. EU Member States must transpose the EU Pay Transparency Directive by 7 June 2026, signalling a wider move toward pay equity across Europe.

What employers should do now

To prepare for the 2027 requirements, employers should:

• Begin analysing gender pay gap drivers in more detail
• Review recruitment, promotion, and pay practices for structural issues
• Develop or update menopause support policies
• Plan for the creation and publication of action plans
• Engage with outsourcing providers to understand their pay gap data

These changes reflect a growing expectation that employers take proactive, measurable steps to address workplace inequality.