Latest news with #employmentLaw
Times of Oman
3 days ago
- Business
- Times of Oman
Know Oman: Can employers deny requests to combine holidays with annual leave?
Muscat: Employees often seek to combine official holidays with their annual leave, but whether employers can approve or deny such request based on applicable laws and workplace policies. Speaking exclusively to the Times of Oman, a representative of Muhammad Ibrahim Law Firm, a leading law office in Oman, explained that, as per Article 78, 'workers are entitled to 30 days of annual leave per year'. However, the scheduling of such leave must consider the 'interest of work', a standard that gives employers discretion in approving or rejecting the timing of leave. While the law does not expressly prohibit combining holidays with annual leave, it clearly distinguishes between the two. Article 79 guarantees paid official holidays as separate entitlements, and Article 78 requires that annual leave be scheduled through mutual agreement with the employer, said Dr. Mohammed Ibrahim Al Zadjali, Chairman Mohammed Ibrahim Law Firm. Employers retain the authority to deny employee's requests to combine official holidays with annual leave, provided such decisions align with operational needs. This legal distinction implies that combining these two types of leave is not a right, unless explicitly permitted, the chairman said. Another spokesperson of the law firm added that, 'Article 81 allows employers to divide annual leave into segments and to postpone it for up to 06 months based on business needs. Employers may lawfully reject leave combinations if such requests would disrupt operations, staffing, or continuity especially in critical roles.' Article 3 reinforces the principle that employers must uphold minimum statutory rights but are not obligated to enhance terms unless mutually agreed. If employment contracts or internal policies do not permit the combining of holidays and annual leave, employers have no legal duty to approve such requests, the spokesperson said. Combining holidays with annual leave is not legally forbidden, but it is subject to employer's approval, operational demands, and the terms of employment contracts or internal policy. Employers are encouraged to maintain clear leave policies and communicate expectations transparently to avoid conflicts and ensure lawful and fair practices, the expert said. (Mohammed Ibrahim Law Firm (Mohammed Ibrahim Law Firm ([email protected]), (+968 244 87 600) was established 18 years ago and is serving clients through its offices in Muscat and Sohar, as well as operating on a request basis in other areas. It offers legal representation across a wide range of practice areas that include Labour Law, Corporate, Commercial, Contracts, Banking and Finance, International Trade, Foreign Investment, Insurance, Maritime Law, Construction and Engineering Contracts, International Arbitration, Intellectual Property and more).
Times of Oman
3 days ago
- Business
- Times of Oman
Know Oman: Can employers deny requests to combine holidays with annual aeave?
Muscat: Employees often seek to combine official holidays with their annual leave, but whether employers can approve or deny such request based on applicable laws and workplace policies. Speaking exclusively to the Times of Oman, a representative of Muhammad Ibrahim Law Firm, a leading law office in Oman, explained that, as per Article 78, 'workers are entitled to 30 days of annual leave per year'. However, the scheduling of such leave must consider the 'interest of work', a standard that gives employers discretion in approving or rejecting the timing of leave. While the law does not expressly prohibit combining holidays with annual leave, it clearly distinguishes between the two. Article 79 guarantees paid official holidays as separate entitlements, and Article 78 requires that annual leave be scheduled through mutual agreement with the employer, said Dr. Mohammed Ibrahim Al Zadjali, Chairman Mohammed Ibrahim Law Firm. Employers retain the authority to deny employee's requests to combine official holidays with annual leave, provided such decisions align with operational needs. This legal distinction implies that combining these two types of leave is not a right, unless explicitly permitted, the chairman said. Another spokesperson of the law firm added that, 'Article 81 allows employers to divide annual leave into segments and to postpone it for up to 06 months based on business needs. Employers may lawfully reject leave combinations if such requests would disrupt operations, staffing, or continuity especially in critical roles.' Article 3 reinforces the principle that employers must uphold minimum statutory rights but are not obligated to enhance terms unless mutually agreed. If employment contracts or internal policies do not permit the combining of holidays and annual leave, employers have no legal duty to approve such requests, the spokesperson said. Combining holidays with annual leave is not legally forbidden, but it is subject to employer's approval, operational demands, and the terms of employment contracts or internal policy. Employers are encouraged to maintain clear leave policies and communicate expectations transparently to avoid conflicts and ensure lawful and fair practices, the expert said. (Mohammed Ibrahim Law Firm (Mohammed Ibrahim Law Firm ([email protected]), (+968 244 87 600) was established 18 years ago and is serving clients through its offices in Muscat and Sohar, as well as operating on a request basis in other areas. It offers legal representation across a wide range of practice areas that include Labour Law, Corporate, Commercial, Contracts, Banking and Finance, International Trade, Foreign Investment, Insurance, Maritime Law, Construction and Engineering Contracts, International Arbitration, Intellectual Property and more).
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Jacksonville Beach restaurant owner sentenced for harboring undocumented workers
Ping Ping Zheng, owner of Kamiya 86 Asian Bistro and Sushi Bar, will spend the next two years on probation for hiring people who were not legally authorized to work in the United States. Zheng, 37, pleaded guilty to federal charges in February. She was sentenced on May 27. According to the plea agreement, Zheng provided rent-free housing and transportation to undocumented workers and paid them in cash without withholding taxes. >>> STREAM ACTION NEWS JAX LIVE <<< Action News Jax told you in 2024 when the Jacksonville Beach restaurant was raided. Zheng and Hua Yao Ke were arrested. Ke also pleaded guilty to the charges. He will be sentenced in July. [DOWNLOAD: Free Action News Jax app for alerts as news breaks] [SIGN UP: Action News Jax Daily Headlines Newsletter] Click here to download the free Action News Jax news and weather apps, click here to download the Action News Jax Now app for your smart TV and click here to stream Action News Jax live.
Yahoo
22-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Employer will pay $42K to settle EEOC allegations it called pregnant bartender a ‘liability'
This story was originally published on HR Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily HR Dive newsletter. An Austin, Texas, bar will pay $42,000 to settle claims brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging that the business reduced an employee's work hours after she became visibly pregnant and fired her after she was hospitalized with a virus, EEOC announced Tuesday. EEOC filed a complaint against Corner Bar in 2023. The agency claimed the plaintiff was removed from a profitable closing shift and was eventually told she was fired in part because Corner Bar believed she would be 'too much of a liability.' EEOC alleged pregnancy discrimination, in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas approved a three-year consent decree between the two parties, under which Corner Bar agreed to adopt and implement a written anti-discrimination policy, train all employees and post a notice affirming its anti-discrimination obligations under federal laws. Per the terms of the agreement, Corner Bar denied any wrongdoing or legal violation. In enforcement guidance on pregnancy discrimination, EEOC has said that adverse treatment of pregnant workers 'often arises from stereotypes and assumptions' about those workers' job capabilities and commitment. Examples cited by EEOC include those in which an employer assumes that a pregnant employee will have attendance issues or leave their job following childbirth. The agency alleged that the plaintiff's manager informed her that Corner Bar was 'genuinely scared something bad [was] going to happen' to the plaintiff, specifically citing a fight that nearly broke out between bar patrons. EEOC further claimed that the manager then removed the plaintiff from the bar's work schedule and replaced her with other employees for all future shifts. 'EEOC is pleased with the resolution of this case, which includes compensation for the former employee who was working to provide for her growing family,' Philip Moss, an EEOC trial attorney, said in an agency press release. 'Unilaterally reducing an employee's hours because of pregnancy is unlawful.' Employers have faced numerous allegations regarding adverse employment decisions made on the basis of pregnancy in recent years. For example, food producer Perdue settled in January a worker's claim that the company placed her on involuntary leave, even though she requested access to water and a bathroom so that she could return to work. Similarly, EEOC sued an Arizona-based call center it alleged had fired at least two pregnant women a week into their training because the company assumed the workers would not be able to comply with its attendance policy. The employer in that case signed a consent decree with EEOC in 2021 that included a $120,000 settlement. Recommended Reading Christian nonprofit freed from complying with abortion elements of PWFA final rule Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Irish Times
14-05-2025
- Business
- Irish Times
I have no option but to hand in my notice as my employer is being acquired by a previous employer
The engineering company where I work is being acquired by another company. I also used to work for the company taking over my current employer. I had a very unhappy time in that place as did many others because there is a very bad working culture in the acquiring company. We are being told that there will be no redundancies – voluntary or compulsory. I have no option but to hand in my notice. Would I be entitled to constructive dismissal in these circumstances? READ MORE The reader's case, as described, is an 'unusual and unlucky' situation for an employee to find themselves in, according to experts in employment law and human resources, though they advise not to make any hasty decisions and to use processes available to them. Anne O'Connell , principal of employment law firm AOC Solicitors, believes the reader might be 'jumping the gun' in this case, saying the acquiring company could be under new management, and the takeover might not necessarily mean both are merging. 'They might just work alongside each other and there might be no changes in the personnel, so I think they should see it out and see what happens,' she says, advising not to 'assume anything'. The reader in this case cannot claim constructive dismissal based on their previous experience with the acquiring company, she says, as it was a separate employment and period. 'Unless the new owner actually does something to them in the present, and doesn't remedy it, and they go through the internal procedures first, there's no constructive dismissal,' she says. 'They haven't had dealings with this company in this current role; they can't say their current role is made impossible because something has happened in a different employment, in a different role, in a different location before,' she says. O'Connell advises staying put and seeing how the transfer transpires, and if the employee finds themselves in the same scenario as they did prior, they could lodge a grievance. After the internal grievance process has been exhausted, and if the problem remains unrectified, there could be an avenue for constructive dismissal. 'Only at that point, if the conduct is serious enough, should they look at constructive dismissal, but only if they can objectively say: 'I can't continue in this job,'' she says. Should someone choose to pursue this route, the internal grievance process must be used first, and the employer must be given an opportunity to mend the problem. Will DoorDash takeover of Deliveroo mean better pay and conditions for gig economy workers? Listen | 28:33 Earlier this week, US meal delivery group DoorDash agreed a deal to take over its British rival Deliveroo, which has a big presence in deal is valued at £2.9 billion and will pit the merged group in competition with other online delivery platforms such as Just Eat and Uber Cant is an author and senior lecturer from the University of Essex and also worked for Deliveroo while he was in joined host Ciarán Hancock on the line to discuss the merger and what it might mean for Deliveroo's battalion of gig economy workers and for retailers using the online ordering on this week's Inside Business, the Department of Finance's annual progress report on the Irish economy, a document that informs budgetary strategy and is filed with the European week it brought news of a slowdown in growth, reduced job creation and a significant fall in corporation tax Burke-Kennedy covered the story for The Irish Times and explained the headline numbers in the report and what impact Trump's tariffs will have on Irish economic growth this by John Casey with JJ Vernon on sound. Constructive dismissal is a 'very hard case to bring home for an employee,' she says, in which the employee must prove they had no choice but to resign due to the actions of their employer. 'It's a very last resort, it's a very hard case to win,' O'Connell says. Michelle Halloran , independent HR consultant and workplace investigator, of Halloran HR Resolutions, agrees that circumstances may have improved within the reader's former company. 'Maybe the management has changed – often, people have problems with a particular line manager, there's always a possibility a few years on that it might be a better environment,' she says. However, a period of consultation with employees prior to transfer, which is required, might provide an opportunity for the reader to raise concerns with their current employer, ahead of the acquisition. This would be an chance to raise prior experience in working under the acquiring company, outlining the fact that they do not want to work for them and why. However, documentation such as previous written complaints or grievances made while working under the acquiring company are vital. Should the reader have such documentation, their current employer might approach the acquiring company on their behalf, and both might work towards a solution. While the incoming employer will be the one to make the decision, they may opt to allow for a redundancy package in this case, particularly if there are records to back up the claim. 'If they never raised anything and they just quit, and they're very unlucky and go to work for someone else and they end up being transferred back to the original employer, if there's no record, they don't really have a leg to stand on,' she says.
