International Dismissal Survey
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Reff|Associates International Dismissal Survey People Advisory Services May 2015 This is a study conducted in December 2014 and consequently reflects the legislation of the different countries at that particular time. The figures used in the cost projection date from December 2014 and therefore do not take into account any changes in legislation of a later date with the exception of the Netherlands. Although this study has been performed with the greatest care the material in this guide is only for information purposes on general practices. The authors may not be held responsible in any way for any possible error that might occur or for any use or interpretation that could be made of this information. It is not intended to be used as a legal opinion in any event. Contents 1 Introduction 3 Cost projection - comparison of the dismissal cost in Europe 4 Results of the comparison of dismissal cost 7 Main conclusions 10 Country reports 11 Austria 14 Azerbaijan 16 Belgium 18 Bulgaria 20 Croatia 22 Czech Republic 25 Denmark 27 Estonia 29 Finland 32 France 35 Germany 38 Greece 40 Hungary 42 Ireland 46 Italy 50 Latvia 53 Lithuania 56 Luxembourg 60 Malta 62 Norway 64 Poland 67 Portugal 70 Romania 73 Russia 76 Slovakia 80 Slovenia 82 Spain 85 Sweden 88 Switzerland 93 The Netherlands 99 United Kingdom 96 Contacts International Dismissal Survey Introduction The third edition of the International Dismissal Survey The survey reveals that there are many differences in comprises the legislation of 31 countries: employment protection legislation (and hence cost) Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech between the countries investigated. However all Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, participating countries have employment protection Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, legislation in place. Contrary to the United States of Luxembourg, Malta, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, America, where employment contracts can easily be Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, terminated, European legislators generally take the the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. view that employees require legal protection, that, to a certain extent existing jobs need to be protected and job This new edition is more than a refresh as the scope of security should be maintained. the study has been broadened in two ways. Firstly, the number of countries covered increased to 31 (compared The main technique of employment protection to 18 in the first edition and 25 in the second edition). legislation is that dismissals need to be justified. The Secondly, we have expanded the number of cost employers have to explain why they have chosen to projections, providing a comparison in figures for similar dismiss a particular employee. The reason for dismissal dismissals in different countries. The figures reflect must be stated in the actual notice or the employer the dismissal cost for employers in all participating has to submit the reason upon the employee’s request. countries based on three cases with a different seniority This reason must also be fair and objective and should and remuneration package, as well as the difference be substantiated. In some countries, the legislation has between being dismissed with or without reason, limited the reasons that the employer can use to justify a totaling six cost comparisons. dismissal. If the employer cannot provide a valid reason for dismissal, then an indemnity for unlawful dismissal The survey takes into account for each scenario will be due, or, in some countries, reinstatement may be the average cost that an employer has to pay in a ordered by the courts by way of sanction. particular country to dismiss an employee and reach a final settlement on the dismissal file without court This study also revealed that some countries have interference. made substantial changes to their dismissal legislation (e.g. Belgium and the Netherlands), either due to court The survey is drafted from an employer’s perspective, decisions or other external factors. which means that only dismissals by the employer (and not by the employee) are taken into account and is based on the following information: i) statistical analysis of the dismissal cost and ii) country reports regarding the applicable dismissal regulations. International Dismissal Survey 1 West-European countries face in general a higher dismissal cost compared to Central-European countries. 2 Cost projection – Comparison of the dismissal cost in Europe In order to compare the employer’s dismissal cost in the In all practical examples, the participating countries were various countries, 3 practical examples were used which requested to provide the dismissal cost, always considered were approached equally by all participating countries, from an employer’s perspective, in view of both a dismissal taking into account the respective local dismissal due to objective individual or economic reason as well as a regulations. dismissal without an objective individual or economic reason. Following this approach, the survey includes an overview The case examples have been selected to provide relevant of the results from a mathematical comparison across 6 information on the differences in the regulations in different scenarios: i.e. the participating countries. Amongst other, the impact Scenario 1.1: Dismissal due to objective individual of the following elements on the dismissal cost was or economic reason in case 1 determined: contracts of indefinite term, age (younger vs. Scenario 1.2: Dismissal without objective individual older employee), level of salary (lower vs. higher salary), or economic reason in case 1 composition of the salary (which elements are taken into Scenario 2.1: Dismissal due to objective individual account?) and seniority (medium vs. higher). or economic reason in case 2 Scenario 2.2: Dismissal without objective individual The following sets of parameters have been used: or economic reason in case 2 Scenario 3.1: Dismissal due to objective individual or economic reason in case 3 Case 1: Scenario 3.2: Dismissal without objective individual • Employee, age 30 or economic reason in case 3 • Legal counsel in an IT company • 4 years seniority In each case, participating countries have been requested to • Gross annual base salary: € 30,000 mention any difference between a dismissal for individual • Gross variable salary per year: € 2,500 reason (e.g. the employee’s behavior or ability) or for • Benefits in kind per year (gross): € 4,000 economic reason (e.g. shortage of work). When such a difference was reported, this has been considered in the Case 2: projections for the case of dismissal for economic reason. • Employee, age 35 • Legal counsel in an IT company For completeness sake, it should be noted that the practical • 7 years seniority examples have been calculated by the various countries while • Gross annual base salary: € 60,000 taking into account the local ‘best practice’ in reaching an • Gross variable salary per year: € 5,000 agreement with the employee to settle the dismissal. • Benefits in kind per year (gross): € 8,000 The figures date from December 2014 and do not take into Case 3: account any legislative updates from a later date (with the • Employee, age 49 exception of Netherlands, where the new legislation applicable • Legal counsel in an IT company as from July 1st, 2015, is already taken into consideration). • 11 years seniority Please note however that such legislative changes have been • Gross annual base salary: € 120,000 covered as much as possible in the descriptive part of this • Gross variable salary per year: € 10,000 survey (i.e. the report on country regulations). • Benefits in kind per year (gross): € 16,000 Finally, the study focuses on dismissal costs in the framework of individual dismissals and excludes the rules and best practices in view of collective dismissals. However, the underlying data collected in the framework of this survey clearly shows that nearly all countries have different rules specific to multiple and/or collective dismissals. International Dismissal Survey 3 Case 1.1: dismissal due to objective individual or economic reasons Lithuania Belgium Azerbaijan Czech Republic Italy France Bulgaria Denmark Norway Sweden Slovakia Poland Greece Austria The Netherlands Spain Russia Estonia Hungary Croatia Finland Luxembourg Ireland Switzerland Slovenia Portugal Germany United Kingdom Latvia Malta Romania € 0 € 2.000 € 4.000 € 6.000 € 8.000 € 10.000 € 12.000 € 14.000 € 16.000 € 18.000 € 20.000 Indemnity in lieu of notice Severance indemnity Other legal indemnities Social charges Case 1.2: dismissal without objective individual or economic reasons Sweden Italy Ireland Hungary Luxembourg Norway France Belgium Lithuania Switzerland Russia Czech Republic Azerbaijan Romania Finland Denmark Slovakia Bulgaria Spain Portugal Estonia Greece Germany Poland United Kingdom € 0 € 10.000 € 20.000 € 30.000 € 40.000 € 50.000 € 60.000 € 70.000 € 80.000 € 90.000 € 100.000 € 110.000 Indemnity in lieu of notice Severance indemnity Other legal indemnities Social charges 4 Case 2.1: dismissal due to objective individual or economic reasons Belgium Italy Lithuania Austria Azerbaijan France Slovakia Czech Republic Luxembourg Sweden Spain Denmark The Netherlands Greece Hungary Poland Croatia Norway Estonia United Kingdom Bulgaria Germany Russia Slovenia Finland Latvia Ireland Switzerland Portugal Malta Romania € 0 € 5.000 € 10.000 € 15.000 € 20.000 € 25.000 € 30.000 € 35.000 € 40.000 € 45.000 € 50.000