3 ms·
Can this actually be enforced. It sounds like it’s a Dutch court v US entity where they were a contractor. If the company had a Dutch entity they wouldn’t make
by Irishsteve 4y ago
Can this actually be enforced. It sounds like it’s a Dutch court v US entity where they were a contractor. If the company had a Dutch entity they wouldn’t make such obvious errors in judgement as they’d know the local laws
- maartenscholl 4y agoIf you'd read the second sentence of the article, you would have learned that the company has a branch in the Netherlands.
- tick_tock_tick 4y agoAnd if you kept reading you'd know they don't anymore and the guy hasn't been paid.
- maartenscholl 4y agoI read that and I don't think it contradicts my comment, as the firm had the Dutch entity and thus the knowledge of Dutch labour laws at the time of the firing. This is contrary to what the parent supposes.
- denton-scratch 4y agoYeah, but it sounds like the NL subsidiary doesn't employ a NL lawyer; or maybe they do, but just don't listen to him.