[ad_1]
Let’s be suspicious if a termination of collective bargaining is offered. And let’s think hard about signing it.
The number of layoffs grows in the thousands every day, and more and more companies face the inability to support their people due to lack of income. Then, sooner or later, you quit, but that could mean more expense unless the employer does the trick. We have reached this agreement, according to which, with a collective agreement, the employee waives the severance pay and the notice period, that is, he does not receive what he would receive in the event of a normal termination. In exchange, the employer offered in the agreement to recover workers within one month of the emergency, if they so wished. And meanwhile, the worker can also become unemployed. As we have learned, many employers have used a similar scheme, and it is even better to include a return option in the agreement.
We found out what’s wrong with that.
Disqualification may be the solution.
At first glance, it is as if the common will of the two parties is reflected in that agreement. But if this is not the case, then it should not be signed – the vice president of the Vasas Trade Union Confederation said at our request, Zoltán László. This is usually the termination of an employment contract in the context of a similar collective agreement. Let’s start with the fact that an employee generally wants to terminate their employment by mutual agreement if they have found a new job or want to leave their company for some other reason. That, of course, was not the case here. Due to the coronavirus crisis, there was no demand, the employer had no income, his reserves ran out, despite the contribution refund, he was no longer able to pay any wages, and the state reduced wage subsidy would not have helped him.
In other words, the employer wanted the termination and recommended a collective agreement to raise the matter as cheaply as possible.
It is true that, in return, he made an offer to recover the worker within one month of the end of the emergency, if he so wished. However, the conditions under which they will be withdrawn have not been recorded in writing, so this is not a guarantee.
Whether such an agreement can be signed depends on what is most important to the employee: receiving severance pay or making sure he or she can return to work later. According to Zoltán László, therefore, it would be fair to give the employee the opportunity to choose. If you have enough reserves to last, say, three months, and then you definitely want to go back to work, it may be a good decision to sign a union agreement. If, on the other hand, you do not have a reservation, you are interested in being told by your employer and also paying severance pay. You may be wondering what happens if you can’t pay your employer. In the end, you can start the liquidation, and then you can pay the severance pay for the employees and the salary for the notification period of the Wage Guarantee Fund, the union leader caught our attention. The Salary Guarantee Fund can maintain up to five times the average gross income two years before. In 2018, the OSC’s average gross salary was 329,900 HUF, so in 2020 an employee can receive a maximum of 1,649,500 HUF of gross support.
It may be legally and morally objectionable, but it is popular
There is no legal obstacle to the parties terminating their employment by mutual agreement, nor is it an obstacle to agree of their own free will that the employee will not receive severance pay or notice for a notice period, he said. Gábor Pozderka attorney. However, it should be noted that if the dismissal is made for a reason related to the employer’s activities, the employee must receive the salary for the reporting period and, if applicable, the severance pay, for which the employee resigns to these by signing a mutual agreement. The question is whether this financial disadvantage will be offset by reemployment or his promise, he agreed with the union.
However, if it is only a false agreement, that is, the parties do not want to end the employment relationship, or only temporarily, only to not burden the company with the cost of employment for a time, but to provide the subsidy of job search, legally and morally. It can also be objectionable. If the employer is unable to provide work temporarily, the situation can be legally dealt with by working time, a working time frame or a mutually agreed change in working hours and basic wages, he added.
However, there is also no doubt that with these solutions, it may be more beneficial for the employer and the employee to go “unemployed” in various ways. So, for the parties, it could even be a beneficial solution for all, which is why many reach such an agreement. In the experience of the labor lawyer, many employers now use a similar solution, that is, they argue with the employee to be sent “unemployed” and after three months they are “retired”, establishing a new employment relationship with him. However, subject to this promise, the employer does not pay severance pay. Even better, if the readmission is recorded in writing, which could normally be done by prior agreement, it is not uncommon for the parties to agree to this only orally.
Gábor Pozderka suggests that if the agreement is aimed at a non-hypocritical purpose and the employee agrees to its content, then, in a similar case, two agreements should be made.
In one, the termination of the employment relationship must be recorded, the parties must settle accounts with each other and write a separate pre-employment contract detailing all the conditions for the new job.
It is also justified that these two treaties should not be confused because they have different purposes and interests.
There are difficulties
If the employee must be returned later, it is important to record the conditions under which the employer will return it. If the conditions are not described, it is not certain, for example, that you will receive your previous salary.
Let’s also not forget that those who don’t return will also lose the severance pay and the severance pay, so the employee should consider signing a similar collective bargaining resolution. You should also know that if, for example, the employer uses mental coercion or deceives the employee, the agreement will not be valid. If, on the other hand, there is no coercion, the employee understands what he is signing and accepts the risk that if he does not return, the severance pay will fail, his agreement may be valid. However, it can also protect the worker from this if, as the union proposes, it is also included in the agreement that if the employee’s failure is not removed after the emergency, they will receive severance pay in the event of dismissal.
According to the lawyer, agreements that are not precise enough and legally inappropriate can make it difficult for workers to force reemployment. There may also be a risk on the part of the employee that, although they will be “retired” due to the changed economic situation, they may subsequently be dismissed for reasons of reorganization.
Featured Image: MTI / EPA / Ronald Wittek
[ad_2]
