The purpose of warnings
A warning in employment is a tool employers use to correct unwanted behavior or breach of the employment contract. Although the Working Environment Act does not specifically regulate warnings, there are established practices and principles that govern their use.
The main purpose of a warning is to inform the employee that a certain behavior or action is unacceptable and that a change is expected. The warning also serves as documentation for the employer, which can be decisive for any subsequent measures such as dismissal.
When can a warning be given?
Warnings are typically used in situations where the employee, for example:
It is important that warnings are not given for trivial matters that can be resolved through guidance or training.
Written or verbal warning?
Warnings can be both oral and written. A written warning provides clear documentation and is often preferable, especially in serious cases. A verbal warning should therefore be followed up with a written confirmation, for example via e-mail, to ensure documentation.
Content of a written warning
A written warning should include:
It is also recommended that the employee signs the warning to confirm receipt.
Number of warnings before termination
There is no fixed rule for how many warnings must be given before a dismissal can be considered. In serious cases, termination may take place without prior warning. In general, however, earlier warnings will strengthen the employer's case in the event of a possible dismissal.
Employee rights
An employee has the right to contest a warning if it is perceived as unreasonable. This should be done in writing, and the employee can seek assistance from shop stewards or legal advisers.
Follow-up after warning
After a warning has been given, the employer should follow up with the employee to ensure that necessary improvements are made. Lack of follow-up can weaken the importance of the warning in later assessments.
For both employers and employees, it is important to understand the importance of warnings in the employment relationship. Correct use and handling of warnings contributes to an orderly and predictable working environment.
Are you in a difficult situation at work? Feel free to book a free meeting with our employment law lawyers - and we will find a solution together!
Have you been dismissed by your employer? If the dismissal is unfair, you are entitled to compensation. An employee cannot be dismissed unless it is objectively justified by the circumstances of the company, the employer or the employee.
The requirement for objectivity means that the dismissal must not be based on extraneous or improper considerations. In addition, the circumstances invoked as grounds for dismissal must be sufficiently weighty to justify dismissal. The factual basis for the dismissal must also be correct. The employer has the burden of proof in dismissal cases, which means that the employer must prove that the dismissal is objective.
Do you suspect that your employer has no objective basis for the dismissal and want to claim compensation? We at Insa advokater can help you with this process.
The legal system is such that you as an employee can claim compensation if the dismissal is unfair. The compensation is set at the amount that the court finds reasonable, taking into account the financial loss, the employer's and employee's circumstances and the circumstances in general.
Normally, you will be entitled to compensation for the financial loss you suffer until the judgment is delivered. In the assessment of compensation, it may also be considered whether you have a future financial loss as a result of the uncertainty of finding new work. You may also be entitled to compensation for non-economic loss if the employer has not followed the procedural rules in the law, for example if you were not invited to a discussion meeting before you were dismissed. Remember that you are also entitled to written notice of termination.
ATTENTION: According to the Working Environment Act, there are different time limits for legal action, depending on what you as an employee are claiming. For compensation due to unfair dismissal, the deadline for legal action is six months from the date of dismissal.
Are you unsure about your rights after being dismissed? Do you want compensation without taking the case to the courts? We have skilled lawyers in employment law who can help you in negotiations with your employer. Contact us for an informal conversation .
What is the limit for an employer's duty to check that foreign employees have the necessary residence and work permits? On April 15, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a judgment where the question was whether a limited liability company could be subject to a corporate penalty for employing a foreign worker who did not have a residence and work permit in Norway. The limited liability company was imposed a corporate penalty with a fine of NOK 30,000, but the judgment states that there is no objective criminal liability for companies.
The Supreme Court's decision clarifies and establishes that corporate penalties cannot be imposed on the basis of strict criminal liability. Corporate penalties can only be imposed in the event of negligence on the part of the company. The judgment entails a duty of investigation for the company to clarify whether foreign employees have a valid work permit. A breach of this duty may result in negligence on the part of the company, and the culpability requirement for corporate criminal liability will thus be met.
This decision is also of significance when imposing corporate penalties.
The company in the case had hired a foreign employee as general manager. The chairman of the board, who owned all the company's shares, established the company and hired the person in question to help him start his own business. At that time, the employed general manager had received a final rejection of his residence permit. In other words, he did not have a valid residence and work permit in Norway. Despite this, he was registered in the Register of Employers and Employees, and he had a tax card. In other words, the employer had reasonable grounds to rely on the information that he had a work permit in Norway.
The employee was arrested by the police and the company was subsequently fined NOK 25,000. The company was informed that failure to accept the fine would result in a fine of NOK 30,000. The company did not accept the fine, and the case was taken to court. The prosecutor deviated from what was stated in the fine and claimed a fine of NOK 500,000.
Corporate penalties are regulated by section 27 of the Penal Code, which states that companies can be punished in cases where a penal provision is violated by someone who has acted on behalf of the company. The provision specifies that this applies "even if no individual has been guilty". According to this wording and the preparatory works, there is objective criminal liability for companies. The Supreme Court also considered whether such objective criminal liability is compatible with Article 6(2) and Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibit punishment on a purely objective basis. In the event of conflict between the Convention and other Norwegian law, the Convention shall prevail, cf. section 3 of the Human Rights Act.
The Supreme Court concluded that section 27 of the Penal Code cannot be applied according to its wording, and that under Norwegian law, corporate penalties cannot be imposed in cases where no one has been guilty. However, the Supreme Court concluded that there was no requirement for intent or gross negligence under section 108, third paragraph (a) of the Immigration Act, and that corporate penalties can thus be imposed in cases of negligence.
The Supreme Court then specifically assessed whether the chairman of the company's board of directors had acted negligently. In this specific assessment, the Supreme Court emphasized that the chairman of the board had not investigated whether the man who was employed had a work permit, and that this was sufficiently negligent conduct on the part of the chairman. This was despite the fact that the man had informed the chairman of the board that he had a work permit, he was registered in the Register of Employers and Employees and he had a tax card.
The Supreme Court thus imposes a very strict due diligence requirement for companies that employ foreign workers.
Since the conditions for a corporate penalty were met, the Supreme Court went on to consider the assessment of the corporate penalty. The original fine was NOK 25 000. It was stated in the fine that failure to adopt the fine would result in a fine of NOK 30,000. However, during the proceedings in the District Court and the Court of Appeal, the prosecutor claimed a fine of NOK 500 000.
The Supreme Court stated that one should be able to rely on the prosecuting authorities to impose a fine in the same order of magnitude as the original fine. The Supreme Court stated that even though the prosecuting authority is not bound to the amount notified in the fine, it would be reasonable to settle on a fine of the original informed amount of NOK 30,000. The company was fined NOK 250,000 in the Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court reduced this considerably.
If your company has foreign employees, this decision means that the company should have routines for checking the citizenship/residence permit of all employees at the time of employment. In order to create a uniform arrangement for all employees in the company, and at the same time make it easier for the company, this routine check at the time of employment should apply to everyone.
The decision can be found here.
Get in touch and we'll find out what you need help with, free of charge!
Call us on 21 09 02 02
If it's not an emergency, kindly book a 15-minute video meeting with us by clicking this link
Urgent?
Call us on 21 09 02 02
Book time with us
Book time with us
Voice message via WhatsApp
.svg)
