Companies offer bonuses for the wasteless, but they are threatened with high fines

In an effort to hone new jobs and hit existing employees, the range of corporate benefits offered is expanding. Some bags may be on the edge of the cone. One of these is the provision of the so-called non-absorption bonus, called the bonus for the unmarried.

In practice, such bonuses can be encountered especially in industry and construction, which has long encountered a shortage of employees. For example, the offer for the position of assembly debt published on the Internet among employee benefits and benefits includes, in addition to payments for working at night or on weekends, the first bonus for non-absorption in the amount of 1,500 CZK / month. The Jihlava-based company will offer the production operator a contribution, a holiday, a transport allowance and an additional CZK 1,500 per msc bonus for absence. And such an example can be found a whole series.

It looks attractive and suitable for both parties. Employees make a living and the employer does not have to make staffings to work.

However, according to labor experts, similar payments may be assessed as a danger to healthy employees and at the same time as discrimination against other employees.

Lawyer: The non-absorption fee contradicts the law

The end of the work stipulates that the employer is obliged not to use such a method of remuneration work, in which the employees are exposed to external health hazards and its use would lead to a threat to the safety and health of employees during the increase of work results.

The provided benefit for the unnecessary is in conflict with the stated principle, or it motivates the employees first to perform work even at the time when they should first stay at home in the regime of temporary incapacity for work. It tries to maximize the workforce and increase work performance to your health, explains Alena Echtick from the law firm Noerr.

The most endangered are then old employees and employees of retirement age, who are generally exposed to the dangers of health in the event of a disease. As a result, in the case of lace and other acute communicable diseases, they can endanger their colleagues and consequently the entire operation of the company.

According to the lawyer, the provision of a non-absorption bonus may also constitute an unlawful practice also from the point of view of discrimination and unequal treatment. Employees who continue to perform their work during the illness instead of having a temporary incapacity for work for which they are currently entitled are financially advantageous to other employees who do not engage in this practice and use their final first time off in the event of illness.

These employees will not receive the benefit for absence and their remuneration for the period will be the result not lower for the first group of employees, although the absence occurred completely without their fault and regardless of the fact that their work may be otherwise the same or even you. At the same time, it is clear that the same wage, salary or remuneration from the agreement is due to the same wage, salary or remuneration from the agreement for the same work or for the work of the same value, argues Alena echtick.

The threat of millions of sanctions for discrimination

The benefits provided to employees by the employer are not directly regulated at the end of the work, but the employer must adhere to the basic principles of the employment relationship, between which the principle of equal treatment and the destruction of discrimination. The employer is obliged to ensure equal treatment of all employees with regard to their working conditions, remuneration for work and the provision of other benefits.

If the employer provided the so-called rewards for attendance, it could be discrimination on the grounds of health, ie the employee would not receive rewards, for example, due to medical training, temporary incapacity for work, etc., or it could be a discrimination of benefits. due to gender, respectively maternity and paternity, and due to the obligation to families, when due to a job at work on the part of the employee (eg escorting the family to the medical facility), the employee did not reach the benefit, say the Sttnho adu labor inspection Richard Koliba .

In certain cases, the benefit could therefore be set even as cross-discrimination, ie discrimination with more discriminatory grounds.

The labor inspectorates have long been aware of the area of ​​equal treatment and the evidence of discrimination, where the case is assessed individually, according to the specific settings. In the case where it is clear that the employer does not comply with the evidence of discrimination, it is possible to impose a sanction for the offense and up to 1,000,000 K, the speech summarizes.

Related Posts