A big amendment to Labour Code is out of game
Already in February 2016, the Ministry of Labour presented its draft amendment to the Labour Code, aiming to significantly change this fundamental labour law. The deputies, however, did not manage to discuss the draft before the term end. As much as this points to legislators’ inefficiency, it is actually good news for employers: despite proclamations, the amendment would have mostly made the labour-law regulation stricter. As the changes have been much discussed in the media, we include a summary of what employers do not have to get ready for (at least not yet).
A flagship of the amendment was a new manner of calculating vacation. Instead of a week, an hour was to become the basic unit. The purpose of the change was to eliminate unjust effects of the current system on employees working in shifts of uneven length. The amendment, however, would have forced the recalculations also on employers whose employees work in even shifts; also, many employers who distribute their employees’ working hours unevenly had already been recalculating their vacations per hour, even without the statutory regulation. The biggest effect of the amendment would thus have been extra cost and administrative burden for employers.
The stricter regulation of agreements on work performed outside employment was included as a concession to trade unions: a guaranteed wage, not just the minimum wage, would have applied to workers working under “agreements”; the regulation of working hours for these workers was also to be tightened – employers were to provide them with breaks in the same scope as applicable to employees, with the duty to keep records of hours worked accordingly. Another change that would have made the agreements to perform work less flexible was the shortening of the compensatory period for the calculation of average working hours.
The Labour Code will also not be enriched by a new category of employees – top managers. These were supposed to distribute their working hours themselves, in a scope of up to 48 hours a week. The practical use of this provision, however, would have been hampered by strict definition criteria for this new group. The regulation of home office will not change yet either. This means that the employers may continue to set the conditions of work from home flexibly, as need be, and not worry about their new duty: to prevent the social isolation of their home-office staff.
Employers will also no longer have to worry about supporting the rather hard-to-grasp duty to prevent employee stress, prevent the risk of violence and harassment at the workplace, or to keep the same job for an employee returning from both maternity and parental leave.
The Labour Code has been in effect for less than 11 years and has changed more than sixty times during this time. Employers may thus be assured that the new chamber of deputies will have a new batch of amendments ready for them in due time.