Littler Global Guide Quarterly 2026 (3) - Global Legal Updates
The Global Guide Quarterly (GGQ) is Littler’s quarterly newsletter offering updates on key labor and employment law developments across the Americas, APAC, and EMEA. Read the Danish news for the third quarter of 2026 below and find the full guide here: The Global Guide Quarterly (Quarter 3, 2026) | Littler.
Holiday Allowance Excluded from Equal Treatment Act Compensation
Precedential Decision by Judiciary or Regulatory Agency
On May 12, 2026, the Eastern High Court ruled that holiday allowance should not be included when calculating compensation under Section 16 of the Danish Act on Equal Treatment. The case arose from the calculation of compensation awarded to an employee who was unlawfully dismissed.
The court concluded that the statutory reference to salary means the employee’s ordinary monthly salary and does not include holiday allowance. Finding no basis in the legislation, legislative history, or established practice to reach a different conclusion, the court reduced the compensation award from DKK 350,000 to DKK 315,000, while otherwise maintaining compensation at approximately nine months’ salary.
Court Finds Retention Bonus Not Subject to Proportional Payment Rules
Precedential Decision by Judiciary or Regulatory Agency
On May 1, 2026, the District Court of Aarhus held that a retention bonus fell outside the scope of Section 17a of the Danish Salaried Employees Act because it was designed to encourage employees to remain employed rather than compensate them for work performed.
The employee had been granted an extraordinary bonus payable in four instalments, each conditioned on continued employment on the payment date. After resigning before the final instalments became due, the employee claimed a proportional share of the unpaid amounts. The court rejected the claim, emphasizing that the bonus was introduced to promote employee retention and was not linked to individual performance, targets, or specific work performed. The judgment has been appealed to the High Court.
Court Declines Compensation for Missing Employment Contracts
Precedential Decision by Judiciary or Regulatory Agency
On June 25, 2026, the Western High Court held that four employees were not entitled to compensation under the Danish Employment Certificate Act despite not having received written employment contracts. The employees, who were brothers, had worked in their father’s company for several years and later became indirect co-owners following a business merger.
The court upheld the district court’s decision, finding that compensation was not justified under the specific circumstances of the case. In particular, the employees had extensive knowledge of the business through their long-standing employment and ownership interests. However, the court awarded the employees outstanding salary for the period before the agreed takeover date after finding that the employer had failed to prove payment had been made.
Failure to Record Working Time Results in Back Payment
Precedential Decision by Judiciary or Regulatory Agency
On July 22, 2026, the Danish Disputes Board ruled that an apprentice was entitled to back pay, including overtime compensation, after the employer failed to maintain working-time records or provide a system for recording hours worked.
The Board accepted the apprentice’s records as reliable, supported by witness testimony from former apprentices. The Board also held that the employer could not deduct the cost of stabling a company-owned horse from the apprentice’s wages, as the horse was provided as part of her training and was necessary for the employer’s approval as a training establishment.
International Organization’s Immunity Did Not Prevent Employee from Filing Claim to Court
Precedential Decision by Judiciary or Regulatory Agency
On August 27, 2026, Denmark’s Supreme Court held that the immunity of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly (OSCE PA) did not prevent a former employee from pursuing an employment claim before the Danish courts.
The court found that the employee lacked an effective alternative means of challenging the termination because the internal disciplinary committee could issue only non-binding recommendations and no independent appeal process was available. As a result, dismissing the claim on immunity grounds would have violated the employee’s right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Read the full guide including employment law news from 50 jurisdictions, including but not limited to Australia, Brazil, Czech Republic, El Salvador, Finland, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Netherlands, Norway, Philippines, Singapore, Vietnam, and Zambia, in Littler’s newly launched The Global Guide Quarterly (Quarter 3, 2026) | Littler.
____________________________________________
Bo Enevold Uhrenfeldt
Attorney & Partner
+45 44 14 30 90
