International Labor and Employment Law

Recent UK Ruling Highlights Risks of “Independent Contractor” Status

In most jurisdictions, there is a binary distinction between “independent contractors” and “employees,” with employment rights only afforded to “employees.” In the UK, there is a third class—“worker” —who benefit from certain employment rights, including paid time off and a minimum wage.

The case of Addison Lee Ltd. v. Lange and Others provides important guidelines on the distinction between “workers” and “independent contractors” which are of critical importance for businesses that engage atypical workers. Importantly, UK Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) rejected an appeal filed by British taxi company Addison Lee Limited, and instead affirmed the Employment Tribunal’s finding that Addison Lee’s drivers were not independent contractors, but instead qualified as “workers.”


Michall Lange and two other drivers brought claims against Addison Lee, asserting that they qualified as “workers” under UK regulations. This was despite their contracts expressly stating they were independent contractors. The drivers therefore argued that they were entitled to holiday pay and minimum wage.

Under Addison Lee’s system, all drivers were provided with a hand-held computer, which they were instructed to turn on whenever available for work. When provided a job, a driver was expected to immediately accept it or provide an acceptable reason for not doing so. A failure to accept a job or provide a legitimate reason for not doing so could result in sanctions, such as logging the driver off of the system or referring the matter to a supervisor. Although Addison Lee did not promise its drivers a specific amount of work, it did instruct drivers that they should try to work an average of 50 to 60 hours per week.

The Employment Tribunal Decision

The drivers’ attorney argued to the Employment Tribunal that the independent contractor status provided in Addison Lee’s employment contracts did not reflect the true arrangement among the parties. Addison Lee countered that drivers should not qualify as workers because Addison Lee did not require them to work. Therefore, Addison Lee maintained, each driver was running his or her own small business—Addison Lee merely provided the cars and equipment.

The Employment Tribunal concurred with the drivers, holding that although they were technically free not to work, “[t]he commercial reality [was] that they are undertaking to do work when and as soon as they log on.” In other words, while logged on, a driver had undertaken to do work for Addison Lee and was expecting Addison Lee to offer such work. This created a mutuality of obligation through the contractual obligation for Addison Lee to offer work and for the individual to accept it, subject to the individual’s occasional entitlement to decline if a parcel was too heavy. This mutuality of obligation meant that the drivers should be classified as “workers” rather than independent contractors. Further, the Employment Tribunal determined that time drivers were logged on counted as “working time,” regardless of whether the driver was transporting a passenger.

EAT’s Holding

Addison Lee appealed to the EAT, contending that a driver logging on to the system should be considered only “a signal of willingness or availability, not a commitment to undertake journeys,” and that there was insufficient basis for departing from the express wording of the relevant contracts which stated that the drivers were independent contractors.

However, the EAT held that the Employment Tribunal had been right to look behind the express wording in the relevant contract in order “to glean the true agreement from all the circumstances of the case,” including, importantly, the parties’ relative bargaining power. With those principles in mind, the EAT held that it was reasonable for the Employment Tribunal to find that the drivers were workers based, in particular, on the fact that drivers was required to accept jobs when logged in to Addison Lee’s system. Regardless of the contractual provision stating that drivers need not take work, the reality was that when logged in, drivers were obligated to undertake jobs assigned to them, which meant they had the status of workers.


The analysis provided in Addison Lee confirms that the label given to a contract is not determinative. It is an example of how the commercial reality will determine the status of someone undertaking work. Relationships that have the character of a “worker” relationship, such as the mutuality of obligation in this case, requiring the individual to accept offered work, may lead to a rejection of the independent contractor status, requiring payment of applicable wages and benefits. With more and more companies seeking to take part in the “gig economy” of independent work, businesses should review their practices and policies to assess the true nature of the relationship with those that they engage.

More Countries Consider Implementing a “Right to Disconnect”

As we move into 2019, it is worth checking in on the “right to disconnect,” a French employment right that now has been adopted or proposed in multiple other countries.

Basis of the Right

We live in a hyper-connected world, and more and more companies now provide laptops and cell phones with the expectation that employees will be reachable at all hours. While some employees appreciate the increased flexibility that comes with these developments, the blurring between work time and free time comes at a price. In what some studies have coined “cognitive overflow syndrome,” answering those late night or weekend emails can seemingly affect one’s health, and an increasing number of employees report fatigue and burnout.

“El Khomri” Law

In light of these concerns, in August 2016, France adopted the “El Khomri law” (named after France’s Minister of Labour at the time), which offered French employees the right to disconnect from work calls and emails during non-working hours. While the El Khomri Law provided the right to disconnect, it did not define it, and instead obligated employers to negotiate the specifics concerning the required use of telecommunication tools with employees. If no agreement is reached, the employer may unilaterally implement its own chosen methods for honoring the right to disconnect. The law came into effect in January 2017.

A Global Push to Disconnect

Since enactment of the El Khomri law, more countries have enacted or considered similar legislation. In 2017, Italy enacted a law requiring employers to clarify their employees’ need to be responsive outside of normal working hours. Similarly, Philippines’ legislature has introduced a bill providing a right to disconnect after normal hours. Indeed, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, India, Québec, and the federal government of Canada have all proposed or considered adopting such a right. Most recent to jump on the bandwagon was Spain, which in November 2018, adopted its “Data Protection and Digital Rights Act.” This new act provides, among other things, the right to disconnect during resting periods and holidays.

Most surprisingly, even the New York City legislature has introduced a bill providing employees a right to disconnect from work communications. Despite being the “city that never sleeps,” the proposed law would prohibit employers with over ten employees from requiring their employees to respond to calls or emails outside of normal work hours (except in emergencies). Noncompliant employers could face fines of up to $250 for requiring employees to answer after-hours emails, and even higher fines for punishing employees who refuse to do so.

First Enforcement Efforts and Companies’ Reactions

The past year also brought the first publicized enforcement of El Khomri law. In July 2018, France’s Supreme Court ordered Rentokil Initial, a British pest control company, to pay €60,000 to its former France-based employee who had been required to be constantly accessible in case a work issue arose. The ruling (believed to be the first of its kind since El Khomri took effect) demonstrates that French courts may determine that requiring employees to remain digitally connected violates the right to disconnect and requires compensation.

Since the law’s enactment, French companies have taken different approaches to compliance. Some simply encourage employees to not answer emails after work hours. Some allow employees to send emails after hours, but hold those emails within their system until the following morning. On the other hand, some have forbidden emails at night all together.

Additional Considerations

As more and more countries consider adopting the right to disconnect, it seems inevitable that the European Union will eventually consider the same. But questions remain. Can a “one size fits all” approach work for the various industries that people are employed in? Some companies simply must have their employees accessible outside of normal working hours. Additionally, some fear that requiring employees to not answer emails after work will simply force them to remain at work later. Or it might put pressure on employees to finish work by the close of business. Finally, it is unclear how the right to disconnect can be adequately enforced when employers may turn to calling an employee’s personal device, avoiding detection of such communications. As was the case with Rentokil, will enforcement depend on whistleblowers?

For the time being, we recommend that employers: (1) have a policy delineating what is expected from their employees outside of normal working hours; and (2) record any work (including phone calls and emails) that employees perform outside of normal working hours.

Germany Rings in 2019 by Adopting Intersex Gender Status

As of January 1, 2019, intersex Germans, meaning Germans with sex characteristics not fitting neatly within the standard understanding of males and females, will be able to register their gender as “divers,” which translates to “miscellaneous.” This new gender classification will be included on such documents as birth certificates, passports, and driver’s licenses.

Since 2013, Germany has permitted parents of babies born without a clear gender to leave the baby’s gender status blank so that it can decide its own gender at a later date. But the new “divers” gender classification derives from a 2017 Federal Constitutional Court decision holding that requiring intersex citizens to choose between “male” and “female” on government documents was unconstitutional and discriminatory. The plaintiff in that case had sought to change their gender identity from female to “inter/diverse,” but was rejected based on that status not being legally recognized at the time. The Federal Constitutional Court presented German lawmakers with two choices: either create a third gender option or do away with gender classifications entirely. The German government took up the challenge, and in August 2018, the Cabinet approved providing citizens a third gender option. In December 2018, Germany’s Parliament passed legislation officially permitting the same.

Under the new law, adults will be able to switch their gender identity to “divers” by producing a doctor’s statement or other medical certification confirming their intersex status. Additionally, parents will be able to use the “divers” category for newborns presenting with unclear sex traits. Some LGBTQ advocates have criticized the medical documentation requirement, arguing that gender status encompasses more than physical traits, and also should encompass those that mentally or emotionally identify as neither male nor female. But other commentators believe that the law is at least a step in the right direction towards societal acceptance of gender fluidity.

Germany is the first European country to explicitly recognize a third gender status, although other European countries permit individuals to change their gender. Other countries, such as Australia, Canada, and India, as well as certain U.S. states, already recognize a third gender status.

China Responds to #MeToo; Employers Stay Alert

China has begun work on the first draft of its Civil Code, a legislative measure aimed at reconciling and organizing the country’s extensive civil laws. The Chinese Civil Code (“Code”) is expected to be fully drafted and adopted in 2020.

Although the Code has been under development for some time, it now finds itself in the #MeToo era. China has felt the shockwaves of the movement as prominent intellectuals, activists, and officials have now been accused of sexual assault or harassment. The drafters of the Code have taken note of this increased momentum the movement has experienced. The most recent draft of the Code published on September 5, 2018, would impose increased obligations on Chinese employers and provide more protections to employees against sexual harassment.

As published, the Code would require employers to take reasonable measures for preventing sexual harassment. This includes implementing a process for reporting and investigating sexual harassment claims. In addition, it would permit victims to hold perpetrators liable for sexual harassment. Victims also could extend civil liability to employers who fail to properly investigate sexual harassment claims.

China has enacted several national laws prohibiting sexual harassment in the workplace in recent years, however, those laws have had poor enforcement. In addition, already-existing laws do not clearly define what conduct constitutes sexual harassment and these laws generally only protect women. As a result of these vague laws, between 2010 and 2017, only thirty-four lawsuits were filed that addressed sexual harassment. Most of those cases were initiated by alleged harassers and brought against either their former employers or their accusers.

The newest draft of the Code seems to signal a stark departure from China’s course on sexual harassment in the workplace over the past several years. Accordingly, employers in China should review their policies for handling and investigating sexual harassment claims in the workplace and pay close attention to any further Code developments.

We will continue to monitor the Code as it is prepared for final review in 2020. We will be sure to blog about any updates.

Korean National Assembly Addresses Workplace Bullying and Harassment through Two New Measures

On December 27, 2018 the Korean National Assembly addressed workplace bullying and harassment in partial amendments to the Labor Standards Act (the “LSA”) and the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.

LSA, Article 6-2, “Prohibition of Workplace Harassment”

This amendment to the LSA serves two main purposes: (1) creating new employer obligations; and (2) providing a definition of “workplace harassment,” a term previously left undefined under the law.

New employer obligations resemble those under the Equal Employment Opportunity and Work-Family Balance Assistance Act. They include:

  • Prohibiting workplace harassment;
  • Promptly conducting an investigation once an employer/business owner is notified or made aware of workplace harassment allegations;
  • Protecting the victim through measures such as paid leave or changed workplace assignments/conditions;
  • Soliciting the victim’s opinion about possible remedial measures taken to address the harasser’s conduct, followed by taking action such as disciplining the harasser or changing the harasser’s workplace;
  • Refraining from any retaliation against either the victim or the individual who reported the harassment; and
  • Specifying in Rules of Employment the process by which an individual can report workplace harassment and what steps must follow.

The amendment also defines workplace harassment for the first time under law as “an act of an employer (or business owner) or employee (or worker) that causes physical or mental suffering or worsens the working environment of another employee/worker by taking advantage of his/her status or relationship within the workplace beyond the appropriate scope of work.”

Regardless of the new obligations and definition, there are some limitations on consequences for offending employers. There are criminal punishments in the form of potential imprisonment for three years and a fine of up to KRW 30 million for employers that retaliate against an alleged victim during an investigation, there are no other punishments for violations. The employer’s obligations also do not extend to employees who are harassed by clients or customers and the employer is not obligated to provide its employees with any harassment training or prevention education. This being said, we always recommend global anti-harassment training for multi-national companies.

The new law will take effect on May 29, 2019. Sometime in the upcoming months the Ministry of Employment & Labor (“MOEL”) intends to publish a manual on the subject.

Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

The National Assembly also passed a partial amendment to the above act, broadening the list of recognized workplace accidents to include ill-effects of work-related harassment. Specifically, the amendment adds the following to the definition of “occupational illness”: “illness caused by work-related mental distress due to harassment in the workplace, such as verbal abuse by customers/clients, etc.” The expansion is important as occupational illnesses may make a worker eligible for industrial accident compensation.

The outcome is that work-related mental distress, which may result from bullying or harassment, may now qualify as a work-related injury for purposes of workers’ compensation eligibility.

We will continue to keep you apprised of these legal developments.

Hungary’s Labor Code Amendments Relax Overtime Limit

Hungary is in the midst of an emigration crisis that has seen roughly five percent of the country’s working-age population immigrate to other European Union countries in recent years. This mass migration has triggered a labor shortage in the country.

In response to the growing labor crisis, the Hungarian Parliament passed amendments to the country’s labor code. These amendments raise the yearly cap on overtime from 250 to 400 hours per year and permit companies to defer overtime payments to employees for up to three years. The previous deferment period for overtime payments under the law was one year. Additionally, the amendments to the law empower employers to enter into overtime arrangements directly with employees notwithstanding unions and already-existing collective bargaining agreements. The Hungarian Parliament overwhelmingly voted in favor of the amendments, which later were signed into law by President János Áder.

Protests erupted in Budapest over the new law with critics referring to it as the “slave law.” As many as 10,000 protestors took to the streets to demonstrate their opposition to the new law.

Proponents of the bill have stated that the additional overtime will provide those seeking additional work and earnings with a means for attaining it. In addition to providing additional earnings to workers, the law’s ultimate goal, according to proponents, is to attract multinational companies and investors to Hungary.

The law’s future remains uncertain as opposition lawmakers have threatened to seek judicial intervention on grounds that parliamentary procedures were not properly followed while passing the measure.

We will continue to monitor the law and blog about any updates.

New York’s Push to Prevent Sexual Harassment in the Workplace has Global Implications

As we have previously reported, New York has significantly heightened employers’ responsibilities with regard to the implementation of anti-sexual harassment policies and training in the workplace. Some of the most notable changes New York employers have adjusted to include the adoption of written policies that explain the complaint and investigation procedure and all possible avenues of redress, a new onus on managers and supervisors to report all complaints of sexual harassment they receive and instances of such misconduct that they observe or become aware of, and mandatory annual anti-sexual harassment training for all employees.

Although this law is specific to New York, these changes are relevant to global employers with employees in the State. While some jurisdictions afford more protection than others, multi-national employers generally have been encouraged — but not required — to implement sexual harassment prevention policies and training. But multi-national companies with cross-border reporting structures, where a New York employee either reports to or supervises a non-US employee, should consider complying with the new requirements as soon as possible in order to avoid liability under New York State and City laws. This is even more the case where a global employer has adopted compliant anti-sexual harassment training and policies in New York, but has not extended such training and policies to its other locations. We highly recommend as a best practice that multi-national companies adopt and undertake global anti-harassment and discrimination policies and training.

European Union Issues Landmark Employment Discrimination Ruling

On December 4, 2018, the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) issued an important decision on age discrimination in relation to the age requirements for new recruits to the Irish police force.


This case relates to the applications made by three Irish citizens to join the Irish national police. Their applications were refused because of their age, and in particular Ireland’s blanket requirement that all police force applicants be aged between 18 and 35. The three Irish citizens filed a discrimination claim with Ireland’s Workplace Rights Commission (“WRC”), contending that the Irish legislation violated European law prohibiting age discrimination. Over the Irish Minister of Justice and Equality’s objection, the WRC agreed to hear the case.

Courts Below

The Minister subsequently brought a claim to Ireland’s High Court, contending that the WRC, an administrative body, lacked the authority to choose between EU and national law, and that only an Irish court was authorized to take such action. The High Court agreed, holding that the WRC was unauthorized to rule on a conflict between EU and Irish law. The WRC appealed to Ireland’s Supreme Court, which asked the ECJ for a preliminary ruling on the matter. Specifically, the ECJ summarized the question posed as “whether a national body established by law in order to ensure enforcement of EU law in a particular area must be able to disapply a rule of national law that is contrary to EU law.”

ECJ’s Decision

The WRC argued that because it was created by statute to, amongst other things, ensure compliance with anti-discrimination legislation, given that EU law was a source of such legislation that applied in Ireland, it must therefore have the jurisdiction to challenge and to disapply national laws in conflict with EU law.

In ruling on the matter, the ECJ distinguished between a tribunal permanently striking down a national law versus choosing not to apply it in the case at hand. Although only Irish courts had the ability to strike down a national law, the ECJ determined that administrative bodies tasked with enforcing EU law must at least be able to decline to follow conflicting national laws. Those bodies must “do everything necessary . . . to disregard national legislative provisions which might prevent directly applicable EU rules from having full force and effect.” Put differently, the ECJ determined that the duty to “disapply national legislation that is contrary to EU law is owed not only by national courts, but also all organs of the state—including administrative authorities.”

Because the WRC was tasked with ensuring employers’ compliance with EU discrimination laws, the ECJ ruled that it must be able to forego applying contrary Irish laws, such as the police force’s age requirements. Otherwise, EU law would be rendered less effective and discrimination claimants would face higher hurdles in seeking justice.

Next Steps

This case will now return to Ireland’s Supreme Court, which will likely remit the matter to the WRC to determine whether there has in fact been age discrimination, taking into account EU law. This ruling may also have significant wider and more general implications as to the ability for administrative bodies to account for EU law, even where such law is, on the surface, incompatible with national statutory provisions.

Japan’s Labor Reform Caps Overtime in a Bid to Curb Karoshi

From low productivity to the death of citizens by overwork, Japan’s labor practices have long maintained a complicated relationship with the country’s workforce. The problem of death by overwork is so prevalent the Japanese have created a word for it: karoshi. On June 29, 2018, Japan passed the “Work Style Reform Law” (the Law) to address some of these issues.

Currently, Japanese law permits employers to enter into special agreements with employees that require them to work an unlimited number of overtime hours. The Law however, generally will limit overtime work to 45 hours per month with a maximum of 360 hours in a year. During busy periods, the overtime limit will be relaxed allowing for up to 100 hours of overtime not to exceed a maximum of 720 hours in a year. In addition, employees may not work, on average, more than 80 hours of overtime per month. This figure will be averaged over a period of two, three, four, five, and six consecutive months. These overtime provisions will go into effect in April 2019 for large employers and April 2020 for small and mid-sized employers. Violation of these provisions will subject employers to financial penalties.

Highly skilled professional workers, however, are exempt from the protection of these overtime provisions. Under the law, highly skilled professional workers must: (i) work a job requiring specialized skills, and; (ii) earn an annual salary of ¥10.75 million or more (roughly $95,000 USD). Labor reform supporters have sharply criticized this exemption as a license to continue the practice of overwork. Meanwhile, supporters of the Law have characterized the exemption as a nod to the working style of professionals where hours and results do not necessarily correlate. Future administrative guidelines will provide employers insight as to what jobs fall into the exemption. The exemption will take effect in April 2019.

In addition, the Law will require employers to treat regular and fixed-term employees equally. Although further administrative guidelines will be issued regarding this provision, employers should: (i) prepare to provide increased compensation and benefits for fixed-term and other non-regular employees; and (ii) begin reviewing the compensation differences between their regular and fixed-term employees to identify any disparities. Enforcement of this provision will likely involve disclosure requirements for employers. This provision will take effect in April 2020 for large employers and April 2021 for small and mid-sized employers.

The Law also contains provisions mandating the use of paid time off. Japanese labor culture has long led to a chronic and voluntary under-usage of paid time off by employees. The Law addresses this issue by requiring that employees entitled to 10 days of annual paid leave or more use at least five of those days each year.

The use of a work-interval system is also encouraged under the law. The law notes that employers should “make efforts” to ensure that there is a minimum interval between the end of a day’s working hours and the beginning of the next day’s working hours. This provision will take effect in April 2019.

We will continue to monitor the Law and its future administrative guidelines and blog about any updates.

UK Decision Puts Employers on Notice for Vicarious Liability at Work-Related Events

With the holiday party season just around the corner, tragic events in the United Kingdom present a worst-case scenario for reveling workers and for employers who may find themselves held responsible. Bellman v. Northhampton Recruitment Ltd. extends the bounds of employer vicarious liability where an employee is injured at a company-related social event. But, the extraordinary facts at play and the Court’s hedging opinion suggest that the decision’s implications may be limited.


In December 2011, Northhampton Recruitment held its annual company holiday party at a golf club. Much of the company was in attendance and alcohol was served. As the party wound down, the Managing Director, Mr. Major, led a group of employees to an after party at a nearby hotel. Among this group was one of Major’s friends and a Sales Manager at the company, Clive Bellman. Once at the hotel, the employees continued to drink, and Major and Bellman eventually got into a drunken argument. The argument was initially sports-related, but soon migrated to a co-worker’s employment terms and other work-related matters before Major called others over and began lecturing the group about how he was their boss and the one with power. Eventually Bellman challenged Major, Major punched him twice, and Bellman fell, striking his head on the hotel’s marble floor. Bellman fractured his skull, needed multiple operations, and is now brain damaged with memory and speech impairment.

Lower Court

Bellman decided to sue Northhampton Recruitment, claiming that the company was vicariously liable for the assault. The court found for the employer, stating that the fight was unrelated to work such that the company was not vicariously liable for the incident: “Standing back and considering matters broadly, what was taking place at 3:00 a.m. at the hotel was a drunken discussion that [a]rose after a personal choice to have yet further alcohol long after a works event had ended”.

Court of Appeal

Bellman appealed, claiming that contrary to the ruling of the lower court, there was sufficient connection between Major’s position at the company and the assault to make the company vicariously liable for the incident. Specifically, Bellman pointed out that the assault was a result of challenging Major’s position of authority, authority the company vested in him, and that the assault was fueled by company-provided alcohol.

On appeal, the Court agreed with Bellman. Concurring with all of the above, the Court also pointed out that Major helped organize the holiday party, then paid for cabs to the after-party, and proceeded to buy drinks at the hotel, paying on the company’s behalf. Further, while the argument may have started over personal matters, the roughly 45 minutes leading up to the assault were related to work. Key to the appeal, Major was not on even footing with the other employees at the hotel. He held himself out the entire time as a Manager and cloaked himself in the company’s authority, lecturing and summoning co-workers, right up until the moment he assaulted Bellman.


At first glance, Northhampton’s broad interpretation of the “close connection” test is a concerning development for employers. Hours after a holiday party, at a different location, at an event unanticipated by the company, a personal argument leads to a tragic act of violence for which the employer becomes liable. However, this needs to be tempered by the very particular facts, including Northhampton’s business model, Major’s role at the company, the nature of the argument and a particularly tragic outcome.

First, Northhampton was by nature a 24-hour business. The company is a recruitment agency for truck drivers. Employees are on-call at all times and Major specifically was always on call in a management capacity, including at the time of the assault. Second, Major held immense responsibility at the company. He was in charge of all aspects of the business. His broad power is even more significant given the undisputed way in which he wielded it over the other employees at the hotel leading up to the assault. Further, the assault itself was after the argument turned to the company’s plans for the upcoming year, a specific employee’s contract, and other topics that directly fell under his remit. Lastly, this is simply a tragic set of facts. Major and Bellman knew each other a long time and an event intended to bring employees together ended in one employee’s life being ruined. Throughout the decision the Court hints towards the particularly sympathetic plaintiff, one who did not even sue his assaulter because he did not want to cause him harm. In the concurring judgment, Lord Justice Irwin may have summed it up best: “I do emphasize that this combination of circumstances will arise very rarely, liability will not arise merely because there is an argument about work matters between colleagues, which leads to an assault, even when one colleague is markedly more senior than another. This case is emphatically not authority for the proposition that employers became insurers for violent or other tortious acts by their employees”.

Even though this is a decision that is highly fact specific, as the holiday season approaches, it is a timely reminder of the perils of alcohol-fueled work-parties. Indeed, even setting aside the legal issues of vicarious liability, any inappropriate behavior at a work-related event is likely to have negative repercussions and contaminate the workplace. As such, we recommend the following tips for holiday parties:

  • Remind employees that they should be aware that the event (and any after-parties) are related to work and that they should conduct themselves accordingly.
  • Encourage employees to look out for one another, for example calling out behavior before it escalates and recommending to a colleague that it may be a good time for them to leave.
  • Avoid an atmosphere and culture that encourages heavy drinking, and in particular unlimited alcohol until the early hours.
  • Set the tone from the top – if management acts inappropriately it sends a message that such conduct is acceptable.