The Social Insurance Law distinguishes between Employees and Self-employed individuals.

The two main types of employment contracts are fixed-term contracts and contracts of indefinite duration.

An employment contract needs to be in writing and include, at least: (a) the details of the identity of the parties, (b) place of business or registered office or resident address of employer, (c) position or specialization, rank and category of employment, as well as the object of work, (d) date of commencement of employment contract or relationship and foreseeable duration, if concluded for a fixed term, (e) duration of paid leave entitlement, as well as the manner and time in which it is granted, (f) deadlines that need to be followed by the employer and the employee in case of termination, (g) all the entitlements of any nature of the employee and the frequency of payment of his/her remuneration, (h) duration of regular daily or weekly employment, and (i) reference to any applicable collective agreements (if any).

Where “part-time worker” is defined as an employee whose normal hours of work, calculated on a weekly basis or on average over a period of employment of up to one year, are less than the normal hours of work of a comparable full-time worker, pursuant to the Part-Time Workers (Prohibition of Discrimination) Law of 2002 (76(I)/2002), as amended, the principle of non-discrimination applies. In other words, part-time workers shall not be treated in a less favorable manner than comparable full-time workers solely because they work part-time unless different treatment is justified on objective grounds, and, where appropriate, the principle of pro rata temporis shall apply.

Pursuant to the same Law, every part-time worker is entitled to equivalent terms and conditions of employment and equivalent treatment and shall enjoy the same protection as the one afforded to comparable full-time workers, particularly in relation to wages and benefits (pro-rated), social insurance, termination of employment, protection of maternity, annual paid leave and paid public holidays, parental leave, and sick leave.

Every part-time worker is also entitled to the same treatment and protection afforded to comparable full-time workers in relation to the right to association, right to collective bargaining, right to act as representative of employees, occupational safety and health, and protection from discrimination in employment and profession.

There is no general right to assign employment contracts, but it is possible to transfer employees to an affiliated / group entity, provided that terms, conditions, obligations, duties and rights all remain the same and continuity of employment is recognized.

In cases of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts thereof depending on all the factual circumstances surrounding the matter, this may trigger the applicability of the EU Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses, and its transposing Cypriot legislation, Safeguarding and Protecting Employees Rights in the Event of a Transfer of Undertakings, Businesses or Parts Thereof Law 104(I)/2000. According to the said Law, when an undertaking, or part of it, is transferred from one employer to another, as evidenced, for example, by a transfer of assets or employees, then the rights and obligations of the previous employer are transferred automatically to the new employers and, in case of collective agreements, the same terms and conditions have to be maintained by the new employer until the date of expiry or termination of the collective agreement, or the implementation of a new collective agreement with a minimum period of maintenance of these terms and conditions for at least one year.

It is noted that the transfer may not constitute in and of itself a lawful ground of dismissal (unless financial, technical, or organizational reasons arise, which merit changes in the human resource).

Further, affected employees or their representatives have the right to be informed, in good time before the transfer is carried out, of the following: (a) the date or proposed date of the transfer, (b) the reasons for the transfer, (c) the legal, economic and social implications of the transfer for the employees, (d) any measures envisaged in relation to the employees, and (e) conditions of employment. Where the transferor or the transferee envisages measures in relation to the status of the employees, he shall consult the employees or their representatives in good time on such measures with a view to reaching an agreement.

Even further, the information and consultations shall cover at least the measures envisaged in relation to the employees and the information must be provided and consultations take place in good time before the transfer.

Finally, the above obligations shall apply irrespective of whether the decision resulting in the transfer is taken by the employer or an undertaking controlling the employer.

In cases of acquisitions or other changes in the shareholding structure, but where the employing entity remains the same, there are no statutory rights for employees. However, in cases of mergers, the Safeguarding and Protecting Employees Rights in the Event of a Transfer of Undertakings, Businesses or Parts Thereof Law 104(I)/2000, in the way explained in our reply to "What rights do employees have (to object, to severance), if any, when the company they work for is transferred as a going concern?" may apply.

Employers cannot amend the terms of employment unilaterally in a way that would be unfavorable to the employee (e.g. reducing salary, increasing duties, increasing working hours, etc). However, if any changes to the terms of employment are favorable to the employee, no consent is required by the employee.

If an employer amends the terms in a way that would be unfavorable to the employee, this may also constitute cause for constructive dismissal and the employee can file a labor dispute application to the Industrial Disputes Tribunal to seek damages.

No - except for the first twenty-six weeks of continuous employment, which is the statutory probation period during which an employee can be dismissed without cause, without notice and without compensation (such probation can be extended up to two years by agreement between the parties, in cases of directors, chairpersons, corporate secretaries, or other persons with alike managerial role).

Otherwise, all terminations must be objectively grounded on section 5 of the Termination of Employment Law of 1967 (L. 24/1967), as later amended, i.e.: (a) unsatisfactory performance (excluding temporary incapacitation due to illness, injury, and childbirth), (b) redundancy, (c) force majeure, act of war, civil commotion, or act of God, (d) termination at the end of a fixed period, (e) conduct rendering the employee subject to summary dismissal, and (f) conduct making it clear that the relationship between employer and employee cannot reasonably be expected to continue, a commission of a serious disciplinary or criminal offense, indecent behavior, or repeated violation or ignorance of employment rules.

Pursuant to the Termination of Employment Law of 1967 (L. 24/1967), as amended, the compensation to which the employee is entitled cannot exceed the equivalent of two years’ wages and is payable by the employer insofar as it does not exceed the employee’s annual wages and from the state-administered Redundancy Fund to the extent that such compensation exceeds the employee’s annual wages. The Employer is thus exposed to the payment of damages up to a maximum of one year’s wages.

The compensation must in no case be less than what the employee would have received had he been declared redundant by the employer and was entitled to a redundancy payment under Law 24/1967. According to Law 24/1967, the redundancy payment is calculated on a graduated scale on the basis of the employee’s service and his/her last wages, up to a maximum of two years’ salary. 

This compensation is calculated on a graduated scale in accordance with Table 4 of Law 24/1967, as follows:

• two weeks’ wages for each year of service up to four years;
• two-and-a-half weeks’ wages for each year of service from five to 10 years;
• three weeks’ wages for each year of service from 11 to 15 years;
• three-and-a-half weeks’ wages for each year of service from 16 to 20 years;
• four weeks’ wages for each year of service beyond 20 years.

Please note that, according to Law 24/1967, the Minister for Labour, Welfare and Social Insurance can set a ceiling for the maximum compensation per week, which he does, by ministerial order, currently at 735.84 euros per week.

Damages awarded by the court may be aggravated over the minimum indicated above depending on the circumstances of the termination, the age of the employee and potential loss of career.

There is no specific legislation in Cyprus to protect whistleblowers and there is no government institution assigned to receive and investigate disclosures. Consequently, private sector employees who suffer retaliation because of whistleblowing mostly have to rely on courts to protect their rights, in case of unfair dismissal due to whistleblowing.

It is added that employers are also free to regulate complaints procedures through their internal policies.

Furthermore, whistleblowers are protected by their constitutional right to freedom of expression and right of access to courts.

Even further, in relation to employment relationships of indefinite duration, after the lapse of the statutory probation period of the first 26 weeks (probation may be extended up to a maximum of 104 weeks with the consent of both parties), employees are protected from dismissals. More specifically, a dismissal that cannot be justified under any one of the section 5 grounds, outlined above in our reply to question 9, is considered unlawful per se:

In view of the above, after the end of the probation period, whistleblowing in and of itself cannot constitute a lawful ground of termination, unless it falls under one of those section 5 grounds, and the employee may seek damages for unlawful termination of employment before the Industrial Disputes Tribunal. It is added that there is a rebuttable presumption that any dismissal is unlawful until the employer proves the contrary. In fact, pursuant to relevant case law, where an employee was shown to have acted in good faith, and their disclosure led to the uncovering of wrongdoing in the public interest, courts have tended to rule in the whistleblower’s favor.

In addition, an employer may never lawfully terminate the employment agreement for any of the following reasons:

• membership of trade unions or a safety committee established under the Safety and Health at Work Law of 1996 (89(I)/1996) as amended;
• activity as an employees’ representative;
• the filing in good faith of a complaint; or
• the participation in proceedings, against an employer involving an alleged violation of laws or regulations, civil or criminal.

Moreover, in relation to civil servants, there is ostensible protection from retaliation under section 69A of the Civil Service Law of 1990 (1/1990) (as amended) and the Code of Ethics of Civil Servants, jointly issued by the Public Administration and Personnel Department and the Commissioner for Administration and Human Rights (Ombudsman) in October 2013, both of which require them to report instances of corruption to their supervisors.

Finally, pursuant to section 9 of the Civil Law Convention on Corruption (Ratification) and Supplementary Provisions Law of 2004 (7(III)/2004), retaliation by an employer or supervisor is a criminal offense punishable by up to six months’ imprisonment and/or up-to EUR 5,125.80 fine, and the employee is also entitled to compensation, in case of damage due to retaliation, through civil litigation.

Yes – employees have a constitutional right to privacy vis-à-vis the state, like any other natural person, as well as a list of rights under the Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), as a data subject, such as rights of access, rectification, erasure, restriction of processing, data portability, and to object to processing.

Any interference with the employee’s privacy, by means of the processing of personal data, is prescribed by the following principles of processing of personal data: lawfulness, fairness and transparency, purpose limitation, data minimization (adequacy, relevance, and necessity), accuracy, storage limitation, integrity and confidentiality, and accountability, as per the General Data Protection Regulation.

It is further noted that any interference with the employee’s privacy by means of employee surveillance and monitoring is subject to the following principles, as per section 14 of the Directive of the Cyprus Commissioner for Personal Data Protection on the Processing of Personal Data in the Sector of Employment Relationships:

• the employer may install electronic surveillance systems at the workplace for legitimate purposes which the employer pursues, provided that these purposes supersede the rights, interests and fundamental freedoms of the employees;
• the means/monitoring systems that the employer chooses to install and the data collected every time must be proportionate to the objective pursued;
• the employer must choose the least interventionist means of monitoring in order to satisfy the pursued aims;
• the personal data of the employees collected during the stage of monitoring shall be used only for the purpose for which the monitoring is carried out;
• the personal data of the employees collected during the stage of monitoring shall be destroyed/deleted once the purpose for which the monitoring is carried out has been fulfilled;
• the employer must in all instances inform the employees before the monitoring begins, of the purpose, method, duration and the technical specifications of the surveillance;
• continual monitoring in the workplace must be avoided;
• secret surveillance is prohibited;
• the employer may choose to prohibit employees from using the equipment of the company/organization for personal purposes such as sending e-mails or making outbound telephone calls;
• the employer must inform the employees of how they can use the equipment of the company/organization, the electronic surveillance methods which will be used and the consequences on employees resulting from the use of such equipment for personal purposes;
• the access of the employer to the content of personal e-mails and personal telephone calls of the employees is prohibited; and
• the employees maintain the right to protection of their private life even in the workplace; the employers must maintain the balance between this right and the degree to which the surveillance systems they choose interfere with the private life of employees.

The above is also in line with previous opinions and working documents of the EU Article 29 – Data Protection Working Party and the European Data Protection Board.

When it comes to remedies, breaches of the above principles, and hence the General Data Protection Regulation and the Cyprus Protection of Natural Persons with regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data Law of 2018 (125(I)/2018), may incur criminal sanctions (up to Euro 10.000 and/or one-year imprisonment; other breaches of data protection law may incur higher penalties) and administrative sanctions (administrative fines up to Euro 20.000.000 EUR or up to 4% of the total worldwide annual turnover of the preceding financial year, whichever is higher, subject to the conditions of the GDPR on imposing fines). The data subject/employee also has the right to seek compensation, if damages have been suffered due to the breach of these principles.

Cyprus has a multitude of anti-discrimination laws dealing with different forms of discrimination in different sectors; there is no single comprehensive equality statute. In particular, the following ones are most relevant to discrimination in the workplace. The Suppression of Racial and Some Other Forms of Discrimination (Ombudsman) Law of 2004 (42(I)/2004) and the Equal Treatment in Employment and Work Law of 2004 (58(I)/2004), which have some overlapping provisions, prohibit any direct or indirect discriminatory treatment or conduct, provision, term, criteria or practice in both private and public sector activities on grounds of race, community, language, colour, disability, religion, political or other beliefs, national or ethnic origin, or sexual orientation, including in relation to (a) access to employment, self-employment and work, including selection criteria and appointment terms, regardless of sector of activity at all levels of the professional hierarchy, including promotions, (b) access to all kinds and levels of professional orientation, training, education and re-orientation, including obtaining practical professional experience, (c) conditions and terms of employment, including provisions on dismissals and remuneration, (d) capacity of a member and participation in an employees’ or employers’ organisation or any organisation the members of which exercise a particular profession including advantages granted by such organisations, and (e) social protection, social security, and healthcare.

In addition, the Equal Pay between Men and Women for the Same Work or Work of Equal Value Law of 2002 (177(I)/2002) and the Equal Treatment between Men and Women in Employment and Professional Education Law of 2002 (205(I)/2002) prohibit discrimination in the public and private sectors on the basis of gender, including in relation to terms and conditions of remuneration for same work or work of equal value, ensure equal criteria for men and women, conditions of employment or access to employment or criteria, further protection of maternity, protection from harassment, and ensure active participation and representation. The preceding laws also have certain exceptions pertaining to residency requirements of third-country nationals and stateless persons or objectively justified discrimination on certain grounds of religion or age, and affirmative action. They also include pertinent administrative sanctions, criminal sanctions on perpetrators, enforcement mechanisms, and whistleblower protection.

We further note additional anti-discrimination laws pertaining to discriminatory treatment of (a) fixed-term employees vis-à-vis employees of indefinite duration, (b) full-time vis-à-vis part-time employees, (c) persons with disabilities, as well as Law 3/1968 ratifying the International Labour Organisation Convention No. 111 concerning Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation of 1958.

Finally, in relation to potential claims, it is noted that a prima facie discrimination claim shifts the burden of proof onto the employer.

Annual Paid Leave: Pursuant to the Annual Paid Leave Law 8/1967, each employee that has worked 48 weeks within one year is entitled to an annual leave with pay of four weeks. According to the same Law if an employee works 5 days per week then he is entitled to a minimum of 20 working days whereas if he works 6 days per week he is entitled to 24 working days unless he is entitled to more days provided by any other Law, custom or collective agreement. The contribution rate to the Central Holiday Fund is 8% for the minimum leave and is payable wholly by the employer. The employer may apply to be exempted from the said contribution if he/she has opted to pay the employee annual leave directly with full pay. This is standard practice in most businesses, whereas the practice of contributing to the Central Holiday Fund is more common in the industrial sector where there are larger businesses. When the employer opts to pay the annual leave employee directly, this should be more beneficial than the Law, i.e. the legal minimum should be exceeded, for example, 21 days for a five-day week or 26 days for a six-day week respectively, with full pay.

Sick Leave: There is no statutory minimum for paid sick leave that needs to be granted by the employer. However, the employee may claim a sickness benefit from the Social Insurance Fund, when the number of continuous sick leave days exceeds three.

Public Holidays: They are compulsory only for retail sector workers. There is no statutory obligation to grant public holidays otherwise to this effect in the private sector, but it is a matter of the individual employment contract or the collective agreement. Nevertheless, it is common practice to grant a number of these public holidays.

Maternity Leave: In accordance with section 3(2) of the Protection of Maternity Law 100(I)/1997, an employee has the right to take 18-week maternity leave, the 11 of which are mandatorily taken on the period starting two weeks before the week of the expected birth. During the maternity leave, the employee is entitled to a maternity allowance from the Social Insurance Fund. Further, section 5 of the same law also gives the right to new mothers to have a paid one-hour breastfeeding break. Adoptive mothers have comparable protections and rights.

Paternity Leave: Pursuant to the Protection of Paternity Law 117(I)/2017, Cypriot law provides for paternity leave. By virtue of section 3 of the said Law an employee, the spouse of which has given birth or got a child by surrogacy or he has jointly adopted with his spouse a child under 12 years old, has a right to paternity leave of two continuous weeks at a time during the period that starts from the week of the childbirth or adoption and ends after 16 weeks. During the paternity leave, the employee is entitled to a paternity allowance from the Social Insurance Fund.

Parental Leave and Leave on Grounds of Force Majeure: Pursuant to the Parental Leave and Leave on Grounds of Force Majeure Law 47(I)/2012, every employee, who is a parent, is entitled to a total unpaid parental leave of up to eighteen weeks, due to the birth or adoption of a child, for the purpose of caring for and bringing up the child. It is provided that in the case of a widowed parent, the duration of parental leave may be extended to twenty-three weeks. It is further provided that this entitlement is transferable only in cases where one of the two parents has obtained parental leave of at least two weeks, in which case two weeks from the remainder of the total may be transferred to the other parent. In the case of more than one child, the parents' entitlement is independent for each one of them. Even further, in cases where more than one child was born on the same day, the right to parental leave is eighteen weeks for each child. Moreover, if both parents are employed by the same employer, they shall decide by agreement each time which one of the two will make use of this right and for how long, but with the consent of the employer both parents may make use of this right at the same time. Such parental leave, as above, may be taken (a) in the case of the birth mother, between the period from the end of the maternity leave and the completion of the eighth year of the child's age, (b) in the case of the birth father, between the time which elapses between the birth of the child and the completion of the eighth year of the child's age, (c) in the case of adoption, between the period from the expiry of maternity leave and for a period of eight years from the date of adoption, provided that the child does not exceed the age of twelve (it is provided that the adoptive father may take the leave immediately after the child's adoption), or (d) in the case of a child with a disability, up to the eighteenth year of age of the child, subject to the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities Law. Such leave may be obtained with a minimum of one week and a maximum of five weeks per the calendar year in the case of one-two children, and seven weeks in the case of three children and more; however, the maximum duration of the unpaid parental leave entitlement may exceed these limits by the consent of the employer. Pursuant to the same Law, an employee is entitled to receive, upon application, unpaid leave of up to seven days a year, on grounds of force majeure related to urgent family reasons, pertaining to illness or accident of dependent members of the family which require the immediate presence of the employee. It is noted that granting unpaid parental leave or leave on grounds of force majeure does not affect the continuity of employment.

Finally, there have not been any changes to leave benefits in the past twelve months and there is no proposed or pending legislation that employers should be aware of that will impact leave benefits in the near future.

Prima facie under section 27 of the Cyprus Contracts Law, Cap. 149, any agreement which restricts the freedom to conduct a legitimate profession, trade or business is void. The only exceptions are the following:

• One who sells the goodwill of a business may agree with the buyer to refrain from carrying on a similar business, within specified local limits, so long as the buyer or any person deriving title to the goodwill from him, carries on a like business therein, provided that such limits appear to the Court reasonable, regard being had to the nature of the business;
• partners may, upon or in anticipation of a dissolution of the partnership, agree that some or all of them will not carry on a business similar to that of the partnership within such local limits as are referred to in the last preceding subsection;
• partners may agree that some one or all of them will not carry on any business, other than that of the partnership, during the continuance of the partnership.

However, section 29(1)(c) of the Courts of Justice Law 14/1960, as amended, stipulates that the common law and principles of equity are applicable in Cyprus, provided that they do not conflict with the Constitution or with any legislation of the Republic of Cyprus. Further, section 2 of the Contracts Law, Cap. 149, as amended, provides as follows:

‘This Law shall be interpreted in accordance with the principles of legal interpretation in England, and expressions used in it shall be presumed, so far as is consistent with their context, and except as may be otherwise expressly provided, to be used with the meaning attached to them in English law and shall be construed in accordance therewith.’

In view of the above, while post-termination restrictive covenants are prima facie void, common law may provide further guidance, since Cypriot case law is relatively scarce to this effect.

We are of the opinion that, in view of more recent principles of legal interpretation and case law in England, non-compete restrictions may be held to be enforceable and valid, where they are objective and reasonable. The court’s decision on such enforceability will be based on all the relevant circumstances of the case at hand. The circumstances that shall be taken into account, to this effect, are the time limits of the restrictions, the geographical coverage, the sector and the ability to negotiate the contract on an equal footing with the other party.

Nevertheless, we do caution that the case law in relation to post-termination restrictions is scarce, as noted, and, therefore, inconclusive.

Employees cannot be terminated for refusing to sign a restrictive covenant.

Pursuant to the Contracts Law, Cap. 149, when, at the desire of the promisor, the promisee or any other person has done or abstained from doing, or does or abstains from doing, or promises to do or to abstain from doing, something, such act or abstinence is called a “consideration” for the promise. Presumably, alternative employment or paid garden leave can constitute consideration for a restrictive covenant. Also, if the restrictive covenant is part of the initial employment contract, it is possible that the offer of employment serves as the consideration for the restrictive covenant. This is, of course, always on the proviso that restrictive covenants may be considered enforceable.

No, but it requires contributions to the Social Insurance Fund, out of which both state pensions and other benefits, such as sickness allowance or maternity or paternity allowance, are paid.

There are no mandatory benefits, but only mandatory contributions to certain statutory funds (Central Holiday Fund, Redundancy Fund, Social Insurance Fund, General Healthcare System, Human Resource Development Fund, and Social Cohesion Fund) out of which statutory benefits are paid.

There is no mandatory retirement age in the private sector, but there is a pensionable age of 65 (an employee may also claim the early pension at the age of 63, instead, at a reduced rate, under certain conditions). There may, however, be mandatory retirement for certain professions by statute.

There is the mandatory retirement age in the public sector at 65 (or early retirement age at 63 with reduced pension under certain conditions). It is noted that some higher-level officials (such as the Attorney General and Supreme Court Justices) have a higher mandatory retirement age at 68.

After the employee has started claiming a pension, this cannot be ceased, even if work continues beyond that age, but certain benefits might be.

First, please note that, after the first 26 weeks of continuous employment, an employee can be dismissed only on the following grounds:

1. unsatisfactory performance (excluding temporary incapacitation due to illness, injury, and childbirth);
2. redundancy;
3. force majeure, an act of war, civil commotion, or act of God;
4. termination at the end of a fixed period;
5. conduct rendering the employee subject to summary dismissal; and
6. conduct making it clear that the relationship between employer and employee cannot reasonably be expected to continue, a commission of a serious disciplinary or criminal offense, indecent behavior, or repeated violation or ignorance of employment rules.

(The 26-week probation period can be extended to two years by agreement between the parties, in cases of directors, chairpersons, corporate secretaries, or other persons with alike managerial role).

In light of the above, after the end of the probation period, if an employer wishes to terminate an employee’s employment on the ground that they have not been vaccinated, this has to be framed within one of the above grounds.

To this effect, the only relevant ground applicable in this case appears to be “repeated violation or ignorance of employment rules”, provided that the employer decides to make the Covid-19 vaccination mandatory.

However, such employment rules also need to be lawful, so that their breach can constitute a lawful ground of dismissal.

To this effect, we note that, pursuant to the Establishment and Protection of Patient's Rights Law (1(I)/2005), patients (defined as “natural persons who suffer from any illness or condition or any natural person who asks for or receives healthcare”) cannot be subjected to mandatory medical intervention (which includes vaccination), except in certain cases related to a medical emergency, the inability of the patient to consent, and minors.

At the same time, the Cyprus National Bioethics Committee unanimously opined on 20.01.2021 that there is no scientific and ethical basis on which vaccination should be made mandatory for the general public, after having examined bioethical principles, including beneficence, non-maleficence, respect for autonomy, proportionality, effectiveness and health maximization.

Equally, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (to which Cyprus is a party), by Resolution 2361 (2021) dated 27.01.2021 on the ethical, legal and practical considerations of Covid-19 vaccination, urges member states, with respect to ensuring high vaccine uptake, that they should ensure, inter alia, that citizens are also informed that “the vaccination is not mandatory and that no one is politically, socially, or otherwise pressured to get themselves vaccinated if they do not wish to do so themselves.”

In light of the above, while, at present, there is no law or regulation that explicitly authorizes or explicitly prohibits an employer from making vaccination mandatory, nor is there any relevant case law, given the above considerations, we are of the opinion that it is unlikely that a Cyprus court would consider mandatory vaccination as a lawful employer direction. Therefore, termination on this basis would most likely be considered unlawful.

Nevertheless, if an employer offers an alternative suitable arrangement to employees that wish to not be vaccinated, such as remote working, but these employees refuse such an arrangement and still maintain that they should return to the office, it may be easier to prove “repeated violation or ignorance of employment rules,” since an employer’s direction for the change of workplace is not unlawful.

If there is no government shutdown order, the employer may strictly speaking require employees to return to the office and failure to comply with the employer’s lawful direction to return may constitute a lawful ground of dismissal.

However, during years 2020 and 2021, there was a government-paid furlough leave scheme, targeted to specific groups of the population, including vulnerable and/or high-risk groups, for as long as the situation was dire. To this effect, in cases of employees that qualified for the furlough scheme, where the employer decided to dismiss such employees, instead of placing them on the scheme, termination of employment could potentially have been considered unlawful, as it arises from case law that termination of employment is always a measure of last resort where there is no other less onerous alternative.