Ingen resultater fundet
Siden du anmodede om kunne ikke findes. Prøv at præciser din søgning, eller brug navigationen ovenfor til at lokalisere indlægget.
Siden du anmodede om kunne ikke findes. Prøv at præciser din søgning, eller brug navigationen ovenfor til at lokalisere indlægget.
Mariann Norrbom, co-founder and previous Managing Partner of Norrbom Vinding, has passed away at age 73 after a long period of illness. Even though Mariann retired almost six years ago, her work and spirit still shine bright at our firm.Mariann was...
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.
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.
The new childbirth-related leave model took effect from 2 August 2022.
The new working environment rules on the layout of the home workplace recently entered into force. As remote work has become more widespread, it has become particularly important to be aware of when an accident that has occurred in connection with remote work can be an occupational accident.
The employer was liable in damages for an employee’s industrial injury because sufficient measures to prevent bullying had not been taken.
The Legal 500 recently published its 2022 analysis of the legal market in Denmark, including firms and individual lawyers in the area of labour and employment law.
The employer was not justified in dismissing an employee without notice due to a LinkedIn post where he wrote that he was seeking new job challenges and opportunities – but dismissal with notice would have been justified.
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”.
An employer was held liable for not preventing and dealing with an employee’s sexual harassment of another employee and for dismissing the employee when she informed the employer of the sexual harassment.