Search for:
Category

Employment

Category

The personal income tax exemption amount on severance pay for terminated employees is now increased, following the publishing of the relevant Ministerial Regulations in the Royal Gazette. On 26 June 2024, the Ministerial Regulations, Volume 394 (B.E. 2567), (2024) under the Revenue Code Regarding Revenue Tax Exemption (“Ministerial Regulation”) was published in the Royal Gazette on 17 July 2024 and has already entered into force from that date. As a result, the personal income tax exemption amount on severance pay for terminated employees is now increased to the employee’s last 400 days’ wages or THB 600,000, whichever is less.

The Act on the Protection of Whistleblowers was enacted on 14 June 2024 and formally announced on 24 June 2024. It implements the EU directive on whistleblowers (2019/1937). Employers hiring at least 50 individuals as of 1 July or 1 January (or belonging to special categories regardless of headcount) must set up or adjust internal whistleblowing systems, including (i) introducing an internal whistleblowing policy, (ii) consulting on the draft policy with trade unions or employee representatives, (iii) establishing or adjusting reporting channels, (iv) appointing a unit or a person responsible for verifying the reports, and (v) maintaining a register of whistleblower reports – all in line with the new requirements.

On 26 June 2024, the Luxembourg parliament adopted draft bill No. 8070 (“Law”). The Law aims to implement into Luxembourg law Directive (EU) 2019/1152 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on transparent and predictable working conditions in the EU (“Directive”).

The Directive aims to enhance transparent and predictable working conditions across the EU by mandating comprehensive employment contract information and ensuring timely communication of essential job details to employees. It seeks to improve job security and provide a clear legal framework for employment relationships.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal has upheld an employment tribunal’s decision that an employee was precluded from bringing disability discrimination claims against his employer as they had been validly waived under a prior settlement agreement. The decision confirms the Court of Session’s decision in Bathgate v. Technip Singapore PTE Ltd that unknown future claims can be validly waived under a settlement agreement although the drafting will need to be absolutely clear in this respect.

On 15 July 2024, the Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA) issued a revised “List of Documentary Requirements for the Cancellation of PEZA Visa”. Beginning 15 July 2024, the relevant supporting document based on the reason for the cancellation of the PEZA Visa (PV) should be submitted together with the application to cancel the PV.

On 28 June 2024, the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) officially adopted Circular No. 23/2024/TT-NHNN (“Circular No. 23”) amending and supplementing several articles of Circular No. 10/2016/TT-NHNN dated 29 June 2016 regulating offshore indirect investment (“Circular No. 10”). Circular No. 23 will take effect from 12 August 2024. Notably, Circular No. 23 presents various points affecting the current implementation of offshore stock award plans for Vietnamese employees in Vietnam and embraces most of the SBV existing requirements in practice.

On 12 July 2024, the Tribunal for Anti-Sexual Harassment (“Tribunal”) established under the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act 2022 (“Act”), issued its first award in a sexual harassment case involving a male employer and a female employee. This development is a timely reminder that sexual harassment cases occurring within the workplace can still be heard by the Tribunal under the Act, and that employers owe legal duties to its employees in managing workplace sexual harassment.

A federal judge in the Northern District of Texas has granted a preliminary injunction that partially enjoins the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) final rule on noncompete covenants. In sum, the judge found that “the Commission has exceeded its statutory authority in promulgating the noncompete rule” and noted that the “role of an administrative agency is to do as told by Congress, not to do what the agency thinks it should do”. Most notably, the court determined that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their challenge to the rule because the FTC lacks substantive rulemaking authority.