European Restructuring Monitor (ERM)
Eurofound's ERM database on restructuring-related legal regulations provides information on regulations in the Member States of the European Union and Norway which are explicitly or implicitly linked to anticipating and managing change.
-Law 4808/2021, Article: 66, 'Protection from dismissals', as amended by Law 5053/2023, Article17: 'Protection from dismissal and burden of proof - Amendment of Article 339 of the Individual Labor Law Code (Article 18 of Directive (EU) 2019/1152)' -Law 4611/2019, Chapter VI: Provisions concerning the labour inspectorate’s organisation: Article 60 Classification of labour law infringements; Article 62 Penalties in the event of opposition to inspections by the labour inspectorate; Law 3996/2011 Article 28, paragraph 4; Law 3850/2010 Article 10; Law 1387/1983 Article 6
-In previous years, if a dismissal was found invalid by Court, the employer had to re-employ the dismissed employee and pay wages in arrears for the interim period. By virtue of article 66: Protection from dismissals, Law 4808/19.06.2021: 1. The termination of the indefinite-term dependent labour contract by the employer is invalid if: it is due to discrimination against the employee, or as a retaliation based on sex, race, color, political opinion, religious or philosophical beliefs, descent, national or ethnic origin, sexual or sexual orientation, age, gender identity or characteristics, disability, or membership or not in a trade union; it is done as a reaction to exercising a legal right of the employee; *contravenes another special provision of the law, in particular when it comes to dismissal (i.e. due to exercise of rights in case of violence and harassment, pregnant, lactating women, as well as the father of the newborn, during annula leave, trade union officials, members of workers' councils, the members of the special negotiating team, the European Works Council and the representatives of the employees, who exercise their duties in the context of the procedure for the information and consultation, when there is no compelling reason for, etc.). 1.a. Employees who consider that the termination of the contract by the employer is a reaction to exercising their legal right , may request notification of the reasons for the dismissal from their employer. In this case, the employer is obliged to respond in writing and documented. 2. If the employee proves before a Court facts capable of supporting the belief that the dismissal was made for one of the reasons in paragraphs 1 and 1a, it is up to the employer to prove that the dismissal was not made for the stated reason. 3. If the dismissal is for a reason, other than the ones of par. 1 and 1a, the Court instead of any other consequence upon request of either the employee or the employer, awards in favour of the employee an amount of additional compensation, which cannot is less than three months' regular wages nor more than twice the legal compensation, due to termination at the time of dismissal. The request is submitted by the employee or by the employer at any stage of the trial, in the first or second instance of jurisdiction. When determining the amount of additional compensation, the court takes into account, in particular, the intensity of the employer's fault and the property and financial situation of the employee and the employer. 4. The employee who pleads a defect in the complaint, according to par. 1 and 1a, is entitled to request, instead of the recognition of the nullity of the complaint and the occurrence of the consequences of the nullity, the award of additional compensation. 5. If the conditions of paragraph 3 of article 5 of Law 3198/1955 (A' 98) [termination of the employment relationship is considered valid, as long as it has been made in writing, the due compensation has been paid and the employment of the dismissed person has been registered in the payroll maintained for the I.K.A (Social Insurance Foundation -now EFKA) or the dismissed person has been insured] were not met during the termination of the dependent labour contract, and with the exception of the payment of the severance pay, the validity of the termination is asserted, as long as the employer cover the formal omission within a period of one month from the service of the relevant action or from the submission of a request to resolve a labour dispute. In the event that the fulfillment of the specific conditions is done after the above deadline, this fulfillment is considered as a new complaint and the previous one as non-existent. When the amount of the compensation falls short of the amount of the legal compensation, due to an obvious error or reasonable doubt as to the basis of its calculation, the invalidity of the termination is not recognized, but the completion of the termination compensation is ordered.
-In the event of non-compliance with the legislation, labour authorities can declare collective dismissals null and void, and severance payments may be required for dismissed workers. 'Collective dismissal' refers to dismissals affecting more than 6 employees in companies with 20 to 150 employees and to those affecting 5% of the workforce or 30 employees in companies with more than 150 employees. There are no specific provisions for non-compliance with dismissal regulations relating to cases of individual dismissals. No specific provision is in place to enable employees to take action against non-compliance: the same regulation applies as in any other case of termination of employment. The criteria according to which administrative penalties are imposed are the following: the seriousness of the offense; any repeated non-compliance with the instructions of the competent bodies; any similar offenses for which penalties have been imposed in the past; the degree of fault; the number of employees; the size of the undertaking; the employment regime; the number of employees affected; the inclusion of the undertaking in one of the categories (for example, agriculture, transport, storage and communication, metal mining, electricity, gas and steam) provided for under article 10 of Law 3850/2010 (OJHR A 84). In cases where obstruction of inspection takes place, may it be false data provision or denied entry to the premises, such shall be punished by imprisonment of at least one year or by a fine of at least €900 or both these penalties. A decision of the Minister of Labour, Social Security, and Social Solidarity shall categorise the violations, specify the criteria, determine the method of calculating the amount of the fine, and provide for cases where the amount of the fine may be adjusted.
-Law 4808/2021 brought about the most drastic change in labour relations in recent decades with radical changes in the law of dismissal. In previous years, if a dismissal was found invalid by Court, the employer had to re-employ the dismissed employee, and pay wages in arrears, for the interim period. With article 66: the right of the employee to keep his job in case of illegal and especially invalid dismissals is practically limited to certain only cases (when the dismissal is due to adverse discrimination, when it is retaliatory, and when the prohibition or invalidity is specifically recited by law). In any other case, that is, in any case of abusive termination, the employer can bring the cure of the invalidity, which occurs in principle, by paying compensation due to faulty (illegal) dismissal ("amount of additional compensation").{The amount of additional compensation will vary from three months' wages up to twice the statutory compensation due to termination at the time of dismissal. This additional compensation is, by its legal nature, different from legal dismissal compensation (Law 2112/1920, Law 3198/1955). The Law does not subject it directly to the deadlines of Article 6 of Law 3198/1955 (any employee's claim arising from a void termination of the employment relationship is deemed inadmissible, as long as the relevant action was not notified within a three-month disruptive period from the termination of the employment relationship.This provision applies only to the termination of employment relationships). The employee has the same right, instead of invoking the nullity and the consequences of lateness, in any case, i.e. even when the defect in the notice does not allow the remedy of nullity at the initiative of the employer}; the dismissal carried out without observing the general formal conditions of its validity (article 5, par. 3, Law 3198/1955) is included in the cases of par. 1, of article 66, with the consequence that the employee retains the job of. {This applies absolutely when the employer does not comply with the standard conditions regarding the payment of the due compensation. The nullity remains irremediable in this case as well. With regard to the observance of the other two general formal conditions of article 5, par. 3, of Law 3198/1955 (document form and insurance of the dismissed), the employer is given the possibility of curing the invalidity by covering the formal omission within one month of the delivery of a relevant lawsuit or the submission of a request for a labor dispute. If the formal defect is covered after the impractical expiration of the above deadline, this filling is considered as a new complaint, and the previous invalid one is considered as non-existent}; *finally, article 66, par. 2, of Law 4808/2021, as amended by article 17, of Law 5053/2023 entails a reversal of the burden of proof. If a dispute occurs, due to an employee's dismissal on grounds of a requested or received leave, or flexible regulation, and/or exercised relevant rights, the employee needs to cite facts, before a Court, for being dismissed due to one of the prohibited reasons. In this case, the employer has the burden of proving that the dismissal is due to reasons other than the ones prohibited.
-Only a few cases have been brought for non-compliance. However, decision no. 1070/2010 of the Supreme Court is very important. According to this decision, the sanction provided by Law 1387/1983 in article 6, stating that 'collective dismissals made in violation of the provisions of the law are void', is the most appropriate and effective measure to prevent the employer from non-observance of the procedure for collective dismissals.
Eurofound (2015), Greece: Effects of non-compliance with dismissal regulations, Restructuring legislation database, Dublin, https://apps.eurofound.europa.eu/legislationdb/effects-of-non-compliance-with-dismissal-regulations/greece
Between the end of 2022 and the first half of 2023, almost 300,000 employees working for ‘big tech’ companies were laid off across the world, making headlines for months in global media. This development has been a shock, considering the high numbers of jobs in well-known tech corporations with a reputation for offering good working conditions and well-paid positions.
The retail banking sector is fertile ground for studying the impacts of digitalisation on work and employment. Financial services are increasingly provided online, without the intermediary of customer-facing institutions. Many banks in the sector have been undergoing serial restructuring since the global financial crisis, and it is one of the few service sectors with stagnant or declining employment.
Since 2011, the Restructuring support instruments database of the EU PolicyWatch has been collecting information on measures that assist companies and workers to anticipate and manage restructuring. This article looks at measures in the database aimed at supporting employees and employers during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020–2022).
Eurofound’s European Restructuring Monitor database reveals the impact of the energy crisis on employment in the EU. Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, energy prices have hit record highs. The European Commission imposed sanctions and limitations on the import of oil and gas from Russia, which has reacted by reneging on supply commitments to many Member States.
