Solidarity, Precarious employment, Tax justice, Slovak Republic, Norway

The Fagforbundet trade union has reported the Aleris Ungplan and Boi private care company to the authorities for possible breaches of labour, health and safety, tax and even criminal law. The union has taken up cases for a number of workers who have been denied their rights on pay, sick pay and pensions and forced to work excessive hours. The cases mainly involve workers who were taken on as "consultants" rather than employees so that the company could avoid paying pension, sickness and other costs. The company is a subsidiary of a major private sector health and social care provider, Aleris

More workers have come forward to join legal action against the Aleris care company following revelations about employment and working conditions made earlier this month (see epsucob@NEWS 16). Public service union Fagforbundet says that the company is avoiding its social, employment and tax obligations by taking workers on as self-employed "consultants" rather than employees. The union has taken this up with the authorities and a further eight workers have joined the 17 who were already involved in legal action. Some of these workers have been summarily dismissed or are given excessive hours

The Fagforbundet public service union is continuing to pursue legal action against the Aleris care company which it believes has major implications for labour rights in Norway. The company is being challenged over using self-employed workers that it calls "consultants" rather than directly employing care staff. The "consultants" have no employment rights and have been forced to work long hours of overtime, including up to 72 hours without a break, for fear of being denied work. They have no sickness or pension benefit or protection against dismissal. Aleris Care is now part of the Ambea group

Seven care workers, supported by the Fagforbundet public services union, have won a significant court case that rules they were wrongly classified as self-employed and so were denied the rights of employees. The workers took the case against the Baos private care company and their claim covers the wide range of benefits and rights that they should have been entitled to under the Work Environment Act. These cover paid holidays, overtime pay, working time, sick pay, pensions and other issues. The ruling means the company will have to pay the seven workers around NOK 5.5m (EUR 560000) to

The Fagforbundet public service union is celebrating an important victory in the appeal court for 22 of its members in a case taken against the Stendi (formerly Aleris) care company. The ruling means that the workers were falsely categorised as “consultants” rather than employees and so were denied key employment rights such as holiday and pension entitlement. The union believes that the judgement will have important implications for the private care sector and is urging the NHO employers’ organisation to ensure that its members note the ruling and end the practice of classifying some workers

After a three-year legal dispute, the Fagforbundet public services union has secured a major victory when the Supreme Court's Appeals Committee refused to consider an appeal by the Stendi care company over its claim that 22 workers were self-employed and not employees. Now the 22 members of the union are set to get an average pay out of more than NOK 1 million (€100000) and the company faces further legal claims from another 50 workers. Fagforbundet general secretary and EPSU president Mette Nord said: "Our 22 members have fought a tough battle in three courts. They have been poorly treated

The Fagforbundet trade union has secured another legal victory against a care company cutting employment costs by misclassifying workers as self-employed. Three of the union's members in the private care company Recoveryakademiet have been awarded NOK 7 million (€600,000) in back pay (salary, overtime and holiday pay). The three, classified as “consultants” by the company, worked for several weeks without a legal working hours scheme being established, and were therefore paid much less than they were entitled to. They were also denied their right to holiday pay and sick pay. This follows a