Problems in Determination and Replacement of Variable Part of Wage Size in Pursuance of Implementing Principle of Fair Remuneration for Work
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Abstract
The existence of the prohibition of an employer’s unilateral reduction of the size of the variable part of wage without an employee’s written consent is related to the form of variable part of wage implementation in the company. Therefore, the rights and responsibilities of subjects of the Labour Law in the context of the variable part of wage, the assumption of their change, withdrawal or emergence directly depend on the form of the implementation of these responsibilities.
Even when an employer motives the employee on his own discretion, substantive law obligates the employer to apply the principle of fair remuneration for work, in compliance with the procedures of determination and information listed in Article 95 part 3, Article 188 of the Labour Code.
When qualifying the wage condition that has special meaning as a mandatory condition of the contract, confusion arises in the linguistic interpretation of the norm. The assumption is drawn to interpret broadly not only the conditions of the Labour Contract set in Article 95 of the Labour Code, but the related norms as well—to broaden the list of dispute categories, set in part 1 of Article 297 of the Labour Code due to which the legislator sets one month limit and the employee uses a different dispute settlement procedure which would be a direct appeal to the Court without application to the Labour Dispute Commission.
Article 297 part 1 of the Labour Code indicates the definition of “mandatory condition of employment contract”. This definition includes place of work and job functions according to Article 95 part 1. Part of remuneration provided in Article 95 part 3 would not comply with the interpretation of legal norms (Article 297 part 1 of the Labour Code) formed in legal practice. In national legal regulation a pay for work is qualified as a condition of employment contracts having special meaning but not the mandatory one.
Even when an employer motives the employee on his own discretion, substantive law obligates the employer to apply the principle of fair remuneration for work, in compliance with the procedures of determination and information listed in Article 95 part 3, Article 188 of the Labour Code.
When qualifying the wage condition that has special meaning as a mandatory condition of the contract, confusion arises in the linguistic interpretation of the norm. The assumption is drawn to interpret broadly not only the conditions of the Labour Contract set in Article 95 of the Labour Code, but the related norms as well—to broaden the list of dispute categories, set in part 1 of Article 297 of the Labour Code due to which the legislator sets one month limit and the employee uses a different dispute settlement procedure which would be a direct appeal to the Court without application to the Labour Dispute Commission.
Article 297 part 1 of the Labour Code indicates the definition of “mandatory condition of employment contract”. This definition includes place of work and job functions according to Article 95 part 1. Part of remuneration provided in Article 95 part 3 would not comply with the interpretation of legal norms (Article 297 part 1 of the Labour Code) formed in legal practice. In national legal regulation a pay for work is qualified as a condition of employment contracts having special meaning but not the mandatory one.
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Section
Articles
Authors contributing to Societal Sciences agree to publish their articles under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public Licence (CC BY-NC-ND), allowing third parties to share their work (copy, distribute, transmit) and to adapt it, under the condition that the authors are given credit, and that in the event of reuse or distribution, the terms of this licence are made clear.
Authors retain copyright of their work, with first publication rights granted to the Association for Learning Technology.
Authors retain copyright of their work, with first publication rights granted to the Association for Learning Technology.
