Post a Comment Print Share on Facebook


Aleris-the case began with a broadside against the employer

- Aleris has acted with gross negligence, said counsel Kjetil Edvardsen on behalf of the 24 omsorgsarbeiderne who have sued the company.

They have been employed as independent contractors, and not ordinary workers. Thus they have not had the right to pension, vacation, effect and herb - and helligdagstillegg. They require in average 1.3 million repaid in the lost addition and the benefits.

20 000 possible violations of the working environment act,

In his innledningsforedrag characterised Edvardsen as rough arbeidslivskriminalitet.

With their kind of business, the company has turned back 100 years to a time when workers stood with hat in hand, he said.

Supreme court

- I used the words gross negligence and gross arbeidskriminalitet because it is difficult to understand that Aleris has been unaware of the regulations they must adhere to, " says Edvardsen to the NTB.

Towards the end of his innledningsforedrag came Edvardsen in on what the Supreme court has said in similar cases. He believes that it should not be necessary that the case ends up in the nation's highest court.

- For the plaintiffs 'part, as is the case also for users' part, I hope that this issue stops in the district court, " he says.

Reject the requirements Aleris Ungplan & Boi (AUB), which is a company of Aleris Care Norway, rejects the demands and claims they 24 even have the desire to work as self-employed.

Requires 35 million from Aleris - will have more to report requirements

In his sluttinnlegg, which was at the start of the trial, writes lawyer Eirik Edvardsen on behalf of the defendant, the party that AUB whatever will dispute that plaintiffs may be successful in their financial requirements. They believe the requirement is based on wrong basis for comparison.

Furthermore, the mean AUB that the plaintiffs are to be regarded as contractors in the EEA legal sense.

"An interpretation according to which the plaintiffs are regarded as employees under Norwegian law will thus constitute an illegal restriction on AUBs freedom to receive services and freedom of establishment," writes Edvardsen.

Can work for several

Other factors that speak for that they should be considered as contractors in the EEA legal sense, believe AUB is that the plaintiffs, among other things, have had the opportunity to take on missions for other clients.

In the final be argued that if the plaintiffs are regarded as employees, it will make it difficult for AUB to offer their services after the virksomhetsmodellen they use today.

It will, in other words, limit the AUBs freedom of establishment, in breach of the EEA agreement, it is claimed.

Very comprehensive

Tingrettsdommer Katinka Mahieu termed the case as extremely comprehensive. Sluttinnleggene is 100 pages, and the 7000 pages of documents forming the subject between the parties.

the Trial will last in the Oslo district court until 5. april.

Full chaos when the new Aleris-owner would take over the outrageous asylum seekers
Your Name
Post a Comment
Characters Left:
Your comment has been forwarded to the administrator for approval.×
Warning! Will constitute a criminal offense, illegal, threatening, offensive, insulting and swearing, derogatory, defamatory, vulgar, pornographic, indecent, personality rights, damaging or similar nature in the nature of all kinds of financial content, legal, criminal and administrative responsibility for the content of the sender member / members are belong.