AKMV Obstacles at work
QUESTION
Am I entitled to a meal voucher as an employee in the case that I am at home and not working, since the employer informed me that they have no work for me and obstacles to work have arisen on their side?
ANSWER:
Hello, no, the employee is not entitled to catering (a meal voucher); however, the employer may (voluntarily) decide to provide catering even to employees who did not work, e.g., who were on an obstacle to work.
JUDr. Veronika Michalíková, MBA QUESTION
The employer sometimes has no work for me due to an occasional drop in orders and also has no possibility of assigning me alternative work. Can they use an obstacle to work in this case, and if so, in what amount would I be entitled to wage compensation? We are a small company without labor unions.
ANSWER:
Hello, Obstacles to work on the part of the employer are regulated in Section 142 of Act No. 311/2001 Coll., the Labor Code (hereinafter “LC”). In our opinion, however, an occasional drop in orders cannot be considered an obstacle to work on the part of the employer within the meaning of the provisions of Section 142, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the LC, but it may be a so-called other obstacle on the part of the employer (Section 142, Paragraph 3 of the LC).
From a collection decision of the Supreme Court of the CSFR, mark R 8/1990, it follows that: “If a home-based worker cannot perform work according to the conditions agreed upon in the employment contract as a result of production restrictions during a drop in the purchase of goods, this does not constitute obstacles to work on the part of the organization within the meaning of the provisions of Section 129 of the Labor Code (Section 142, Para. 1 LC), but rather other obstacles on the part of the organization within the meaning of the provisions of Section 130 of the Labor Code (Section 142, Para. 3 LC).”
According to Section 142, Paragraph 3 of the LC: “If an employee could not perform work due to other obstacles on the part of the employer than those stated in paragraphs 1 and 2, the employer shall provide them with wage compensation in the amount of their average earnings.”
Also, according to a current decision of the Supreme Court of the SR, Case No. 9Cdo/127/2022: “The provision of Section 142, Paragraph 3 of the Labor Code establishes an employee’s entitlement to wage compensation if they could not perform work for reasons other than downtime (Section 142, Para. 1 LC), adverse weather conditions (Section 142, Para. 2 LC), or other serious operational reasons, and the reason (cause) for the employee’s inability to perform work is given on the part of the employer. Wage compensation according to Section 142, Paragraph 3 of the Labor Code has the character of a wage equivalent that the employee could not earn as a result of the employer failing to allow them to perform the work they committed to under the employment contract, in violation of Section 47, Paragraph 1, Letter a) of the Labor Code (…); the employee has the entitlement to wage compensation for the entire duration that this obstacle lasts. In this way, the law aims to ensure that the harm suffered by the employee as a result of the employer’s unlawful conduct is repaired.”
JUDr. Veronika Michalíková, MBA