Needless to say, the definitions in the Working Environment Act have a great impact on the act as a whole. In the proposition, a more detailed definition of the employee-term is proposed. The aim is to clarify the legal position of workers, and to reduce the uncertainty that may some time arise, particularly regarding whether a worker is indeed an "employee" with employee protection rights, or rather a "consultant", "independent contractor" or similar, without such rights. It is suggested to specify certain factors directly in the act that must be taken into account when determining to which category a worker belongs. The factors that may be included in the act, are (i) that the employee makes his/her workforce available for the employer on a continuous basis, (ii) that the employee's duty to work is of a personal character and (iii) that the employee is subject to the employer's management and control.
It is also suggested that going forward, it shall be a presumption for a worker to fall within the "employee" category, unless the employer can document that the worker is merely in a contractual relationship as a consultant/similar. If the suggested adjustment is approved, such a presumption implies that the contrary must be proven with a preponderance of the evidence (meaning that it is more likely than the opposite, i.e. by more than 50%).
As for the definition of "employer", only smaller more editorial changes are suggested at this point, such as a reference to the "employee" definition.