(Un)justified application of labour law rules of dismissal protection on self-employed persons

In this paper the rights of employees and self-employed persons and the distinction between them are analysed, with the special focus on dismissal protection. Using the comparative and normative method, the author analyses these legal questions in legal systems in Spain, Austria, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Nothern Ireland, and the United States of America, including the existence of the mid-category of semi-dependent self-employed persons in the first three abovementioned jurisdictions and practical consequences of their existence. Dismissal protection of self-employed persons represents a legal question that is not sufficiently researched in comparison to the dismissal protection of employees. The hypothesis of the author in this paper has been based on the opinion that self-employed persons who work for others are justifiably deprived of dismissal protection, unlike semi-dependent self-employed persons who are unjustifiably deprived of it, especially because the second mentioned category does not experience entrepreneurial risks and chances. Also, the question of dismissal protection of self-employed persons is very relevant when we consider the amount of misuse of this occurrence and cost savings which employers often have when employing them. In the end, de lege ferenda solutions and their implications for other legal systems are proposed by the author of the paper.

DISMISSAL PROTECTION IN THE BRICS COUNTRIES IN LIGHT OF ILO CON VENTION No. 158

The BRICS countries have aspirations to achieve sustainable development in their economies and environmental protection. These aspirations have an important social aspect in the area of employment protection as it relates to ensuring fair development. In order to establish national standards for dismissal protection in four of the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, China and South Africa) the authors have considered the legislation and relevant national case law. This paper includes a review of International Labour Organisation (ILO) standards of dismissal protection, which are used as a pattern for comparison. The paper consists of five parts: the first deals with the history and explores the legal standards adopted in the ILO Convention No. 158; the remaining four parts present the research on each of the national dismissal protection systems in the four BRICS countries under study. The authors conclude that even though the national systems are different and have dissimilar scopes in respect of dismissal protection, their regulations are largely in line with the Convention, which has not been ratified by any of the BRICS countries; and that international instruments even without ratification may be a helpful instrument for shaping the national system of dismissal protection, and for providing guidance to policymakers and legislators.

International Seminar Review Notes Dismissal Protection in the BRICS Countries

Legal scholars from Brazil, South Africa and Russia gathered in Saint Petersburg on 25 January 2019 to attend the International Legal Science Seminar hosted by the Department of Labor Law and Labor Protection at Saint Petersburg State University.This review is prepared based on the material in the presentations provided by the speakers at the International Legal Science Seminar.

Der Kündigungsschutz des besonderen Vertreters eines Vereins

While the law only stipulates a representative body for both German GmbHs (limited liability companies) and AGs (joint-stock companies), such as the managing director or the executive board, § 30 of the BGB (Germany’s civil code) provides for a further body in addition to the executive board, which can be appointed to represent an association: the special representative. The focus of this investigation is the question of whether the special representative, as an organ of a legal entity, can fall within the personal scope of application of the ‘Dismissal Protection Act’ (KSchG). However, since the special representative is an organ of an association, the applicability of general protection against dismissal could be opposed by § 14 (1), no. 1 of the KSchG, according to which general protection against dismissal does not apply to the members of the organ appointed to legally represent a legal person. Whether and under which conditions the special representative falls under § 14, para. 1, no. 1 of the KSchG as a legal representative is the subject of this investigation.