Skrevet af
Norrbom Vinding given top ranking by Chambers Europe 2022
Also this year, Norrbom Vinding is recognised as a top tier firm by Chambers Europe within the field of labour and employment law, stating that ”Norrbom Vinding remains an employment powerhouse”.
The Chambers Europe guide is published once a year and provides an analysis and assessment of the European legal markets based on interviews with and feedback from clients and competitors.
In addition to ranking Norrbom Vinding as a leading law firm in Band 1, Partners Yvonne Frederiksen, Christian K. Clasen and Jørgen Vinding are individually ranked in the Chambers Europe guide, and Jørgen Vinding is – as the only lawyer in Denmark – regarded as an ”Eminent Practitioner” within labour and employment law.
The European Parliament adopts proposed directive on pay transparency
The proposed directive, which is aimed at ensuring equal pay for men and women, is awaiting adoption by the Council of the European Union.
Amendment to the rules on recruitment of foreign workers adopted
The Danish Parliament recently adopted an amendment to the Aliens Act to make it easier to recruit workers from countries outside the EU/EEA.
Gender composition of management – updated guidelines
The Danish Business Authority has published updated guidelines on target figures and policies for the gender composition of management and for reporting on this issue.
Bill on preventing and tackling sexual harassment
The Ministry of Employment recently introduced a bill aiming to implement parts of the tripartite agreement on combatting sexual harassment in the workplace, but the 1 November general election means legislative progress is currently on hold.
To be or not to be a temp
An employee was covered by the Temporary Agency Workers Act even though he was assigned to the same workplace for three years and eight months.
Take time to consider
The Board of Equal Treatment has heard two complaints about whether it was contrary to the Anti-Discrimination Act to refuse to employ candidates with a disability. In the first case, the Board found that the company had met its duty to accommodate; in the other case, the company had not.