Company pays employees corona bonus for the previous year, but I&#39;ve quit in January My ex-company decided to pay its employees a bonus for the struggles with Corona in 2021. I've resigned from my job at that company in January 2022. They announced the bonus payment in February 2022, I've gotten the info from an ex-coworker. This Corona bonus bases on a special law in Germany, that allows a company to pay its employees up to €1.500 tax-free because of the Coronavirus. There are no other statements about this bonus in my contract. The bonus is voluntary, though. My understanding is, that because I've worked for the company in 2021, I should be still eligible for the bonus payment, even if I've quit already. I know that there were other employees who planned to quit in early 2022 and handed in their notices already at the end of 2021, I feel like the company delayed the announcement to late February 2022 on purpose, to save money. Am I right with my assumption that I am still eligible for that bonus, and would it be worth to contact my old company about this, or even to contact a lawyer for that matter?
Not likely The company decided to pay the bonus on a certain date. They most likely announced that everybody that is part of the company on a certain date in 2021/2022 [and who has worked at it for a certain duration] will get a bonus. If you are able to get the bonus is dependent on the exact wording of the document that promised the bonus.
The German law mandates minimum notice periods for work contracts. But there is no restriction on maximum notice periods, as long as the employee does not have a longer notice period than the employer (§622 BGB de|en). So yes, in theory you could negotiate that the company is not allowed to fire you in the first 4 years. But I would find it unlikely that they would agree to that. When the stock options are really your only reason why you want to avoid getting terminated in the first 4 years, then they are more likely to be open to negotiations about the stock option clause than about the termination clause.
being overtime-exempt means they're not required to pay me time &amp; 1/2 for overtime, but they're not prohibited from doing so correct? No, the employer is not prohibited from paying you time &amp; 1/2 for overtime. Nor is the employer doing you a favor with respect to the overtime you have been paid already. The employer looks foolish by telling you &quot;I'm doing you a favor by breaching our contract only for future payments but not for past ones&quot;. are they required to keep paying me that as part of the contract or can they just stop whenever they'd like since I'm exempt? Yes, the employer is required to keep paying you under the terms of your contract: 1.5 times the normal rate in case of overtime. Your clarification reflects that the notion of &quot;overtime-exempt&quot; is not contemplated in the contract at all, and the employer just brought it up belatedly. Even if the contract were ambiguous or contradicted itself in this regard, the doctrine of contra proferentem would entitle you to the reasonable interpretation that favors your position (that is because the employer is the party who drafted the contract).
Can my accountant bill me for previous work he agreed to perform for free? No. The difficult part will be for you to prove that he agreed to do the job for free. Hence the importance of having this kind of "gentlemen's" agreements in writing. You have the burden of outweighing --even by means of circumstantial evidence-- the common presumption that professional work is done for compensation, not for free. However, just like it might be hard for you to prove the aforementioned "gentlemen's agreement", it would also be hard for him to prove that you agreed to (or knew, or should have known, you would have to) pay the amount he is billing now. In the event that you are unable to prove he agreed to work for free, you might want to dispute the reasonableness of the amounts he is pursuing so belatedly. It is noteworthy that the work at issue being "really simple" would not be the only factor for assessing how much he may recover. Other factors such as the accountant's qualifications or the market rate for similar services would be weighed in awarding recovery (if any). Can I legally ignore these invoices? It does not make any sense that he sends me invoices for work done 4 years ago. You may ignore the invoices regarding older work, that is, those for which the period of limitations has elapsed. For most cases, section 4 of the Ontario Limitations Act provides a two-year period to bring a claim. Since the accountant himself did the job, and most likely he was --or should have been-- aware of the payments due for his services, he would be unable to prove that his "discovery" of claims (see section 5 of Limitations Act) regarding older tax filings meets the period of limitations. Equivalently, see here the paragraph starting with "For example, if the courts determine that [...]".
When does a CEO (or the investor or the board) have to notify employees they will be unable to pay them for work already done? Directors and officers (which includes executive officers like the CEO) but not investors have a duty to ensure that the corporation does not trade while insolvent. In this context, "trading" means incurring new debts and "insolvent" means being unable to pay their debts as and when they fall due. Unfortunately, it is a judgment call by those directors and officers and the exact point where it occurred is generally only clear with hindsight, if then. For example, you describe a "tumultuous week"; quite likely the company was urgently seeking additional sources of funds and until it was clear they had no prospect of getting those, they weren't insolvent. The director's duty is to act reasonably (a broad range of activities) and not be overly pessimistic nor optimistic about the company's prospects. As far as I know, they don't have a positive duty to inform their creditors that they can't pay. If that happens their obligation is to file for bankruptcy and their obligations cease - the bankruptcy trustee then invites creditors to prove their debts. Does an investor have a responsibility to ensure all employees are paid? No. That is pretty much the purpose of limited liability corporations: to shield the investor from the debts of the company. Do the employees have any recourse? Yes. Employees are typically priority creditors in Colorado and rank ahead of many other creditors. However, if the company is not based in Colorado different laws will apply. Of course, you must be an employee of the company - this priority doesn't apply to true independent contractors. Also, the liquidator's fees rank ahead of anyone and unless the bankrupt company has adequate realizable assets, even employees are unlikely to get a dividend. You also need to be clear who you work for as you say "that last Friday was paid for/fronted by the HR company". Do you work for the bankrupt company or this (non-bankrupt) HR company? If the latter then they owe you your wages and the bankruptcy of their principal is their problem, not yours. Is "secured debt" real? And does that reduce the likelihood of receiving a paycheck in a bankruptcy settlement? Yes. There is a priority in the payment of creditors in liquidations and it varies by jurisdiction but a typical arrangement might go like: Liquidator's Fees Employee wages and entitlement accrued within the last 6 months Certain taxes Secured creditors (who may have a ranking among themselves) Unsecured creditors (including employee entitlements more than 12 months old, other taxes, trade creditors etc.) Shareholders (who may have a ranking among themselves) Basically, the lower you rank, the less likely you are to see a dividend. Does any of this change if the company doesn't file for bankruptcy? Sure. Until the company does this it is still a going concern and it has to pay its debts. If it doesn't it's creditors can sue and recover their monies as best they can which may include forcing the company into bankruptcy.
It isn't 100% clear from the question if a case has been filed in court, or someone was just planning on filing a lawsuit, which is an important fact. It seems like the ex filed a court case and you hired attorneys who responded. If there is a court case filed, that can't just be abandoned until all the i's are dotted and t's are crossed in the eyes of the court. The lawyers can't quit unless the court gives them permission to do so. Usually, lawyers are entitled to be paid for all of the work they do and out of pocket charges they incur in a case, until it is wrapped up, even if some wrap up work happens after the event that determines the final outcome of the case like your ex deciding to abandon his arguments. But, otherwise, if there isn't a pending court case, you normally have the power to tell your lawyers to stop everything and give you the moment left (if any) in your retainer. At first read, it almost sounded as if your lawyers are willing to do that, but are warning you that your ex might continue to be a problem after the lawyers quit and that if that happens, it will be more costly and time consuming to start all over dealing with the threatened lawsuit that your ex made, than it would be to get it over and done with now. But, upon closer inspection, it seems that there is a pending lawsuit and that this is the issue.
According to your description, you have a contract to work 200 hours, and this must be accomplished between May 12 and July 10. Apparently you are 25 hour short on that obligation, which may mean that you probably will be in breach of contract. I don't see what error there is w.r.t. the date: whatever the contract says, that is what you agreed to. Perhaps you are wholely responsible for the shortfall of hours, or perhaps the employer bears some responsibility (e.g. making it impossible for you to work). It sounds like the employer is offering you an accommodation so that you can fulfill the hours part of the contract, by extending the termination date. Technically, you also have to do the work by a particular date, but a reasonable delay in performance is standardly allowed under contract law, unless the contract has a &quot;time is of the essence&quot; clause which states that completion by the specific date is essential to the contract. If not, then there is reasonable flexibility in completion. Doing less than you contracted for, on the other hand, is not a standardly-available option. Pursuant to the comment, it sort of sounds like the employer made it impossible to satisfy the conditions of the contract, and wants to use the end of contract date as a form of hardball to extract additional hours (i.e. &quot;we'll sue you for breach of contract for not having done this by the deadline, unless you agree to work an additional 15 hours&quot;). Hardcore deadlines without a time is of the essence clause don't support a claim for damages in case of minor delay, and even less so when the employer bears responsibility for the delay. Consulting an attorney (bring in the contract and all), in this case, would be a good idea, if they are hinting at a lawsuit if you just walk away 15 hours short, or won't accept your compromise.
Not legal advice - you should consult an attorney who knows your local jurisdiction. That's a general statement, but especially true here because the GDPR does not include personal liability for directors (or others) in the event of a data breach, but domestic laws may indeed do just that. The UK is one example where certain circumstances can lead to criminal liability for directors of a firm in the event of a breach. That said, your company should care. The fines for knowingly allowing a breach or not reporting it properly in a timely manner have been made more significant than the prior Directive. There are things you could do to potentially mitigate consequences in the event of a breach and a fine being levied on the company, such as aligning with best practices and getting certifications. In sum, the actual punishments for noncompliance will vary by jurisdiction, but any business that handles data in the EU should undoubtedly be ensuring it is aware of what, if any, obligations it has and taking steps to comply before May's deadline.