Koumentakis

Tag: εργασιακά

  • Annual & unpaid leave – holidays

    Annual & unpaid leave – holidays

    In a previous article, we were concerned with the provisions of Law 4808/2021, regarding the leave of employees related to their family obligations. Specifically, on the leave aimed at balancing work and private life for parents and caregivers. Also, leave aimed at protecting the family. In addition, we analyzed the provisions aimed at ensuring a minimum scope of protection for those exercising their rights in relation to the aforementioned types of leave.

    We will close the series of our articles referring to employee leaves with those that do not fall into the above sections: the annual leave as well as the unpaid leave.

    We will also refer to holidays, as they are codified and established under the same law.

     

    Annual leave

    Every year the employee is given the opportunity to abstain, for a few days, from providing work to their employer, while maintaining their claim for pay. We are referring to the annual leave. Its purpose is the rest and recreation of the employee.

    As the case law of the ECJ has consistently accepted, annual leave has a dual purpose: to provide the employee with a period of relaxation and leisure but also with the possibility of replenishing their powers (indent: C-520/06, paragraph 25). There can, therefore, but be provided to employees. This, in simple words, means that the granting of free time cannot be legally replaced by monetary compensation. Even if the employee consents, accepts or requests it. An exception is the case of termination of employment, in which case, financial replacement of said right is deemed necessary.

    The legislative framework

    At EU level, the right to take annual leave is established by Directive 2003/88. Specifically, Article 7 provides for a minimum duration of the said leave of four (4) weeks. Respectively, at national level, the general legislative framework regarding the annual leave is set by law 539/1945. The latter regulates issues such as the duration of the specific leave, the conditions for obtaining it and the financial benefits associated with its granting.

    In addition, law 539/1945 provided – until the entry into force of law 4808/2021 – that the employer was obliged to grant the specific leave until the end of each calendar year. The last day of the year was considered the “due” date of the granting of the last day of annual leave. As a result, its passing made the employer overdue and resulted in civil, criminal and administrative sanctions against them. In this context and given the provision of the right to transfer the leave, any (remaining-unfulfilled) claim of the employee for obtaining their annual leave was converted, after 1.1 of each year, into cash.

    However, as legal theory (also) pointed out, the absolute prohibition of the right to carry annual leave was contrary to EU law. As accepted by the ECJ, Article 7 §1 of Directive 2003/88 prohibits national provisions or practices which provide that the right to paid annual leave is extinguished at the end of the reference period and / or a transfer period determined by national law. It is interesting to note that this is true even when the employee, due to a problem of theirs (eg sick leave) was not able to exercise their right to paid annual leave (indent: C-520/06, paragraph 25).

    The ECJ, of course, points out that the transfer time cannot be unlimited. The transfer, as it accepts, should not exceed a specific time limit, beyond which the annual leave ceases to have beneficial effects on the employee as a time of replenishment and merely has the meaning of relaxation and leisure time (C-214). / 16 paragraph 33).

    The recent regulation

    Article 61 of Law 4808/2021 brings about interesting changes regarding the time of granting the annual leave. It maintains, first of all, the two existing restrictions on this provision. That is, it provides that the employer is obliged to grant the said leave within two (2) months from the relevant application of the employee. At the same time, the leave of at least half of the staff must be granted from 1 May to 30 September. [Of course, one question is not answered – not even with this provision: what will (should) happen if, in theory, all employees of a company apply for their leave on June 30 of one year for the months of July-August]…

    The innovation is that the above provision modifies the time point of extinction of the right to obtain annual leave. It stipulates, in particular, that “… the eligible leave, per year, must be exhausted by the first quarter of the following calendar year”.

    Despite this addition, the letter of the law does not seem to comply with EU law. Specifically, as shown by the new regulation, and is stressed by Circular No. 64597 / 03.09.2021 of the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs: “Instructions for the implementation of Chapter A’” REGULATIONS OF INDIVIDUAL LABOR LAW “(articles 55-67) of part IV of Law 4808/2021 (Α’101) “, this addition extends the period of time within which an annual leave can be granted. At the same time, March 31 is considered as a due date for the employee to receive all the leave they are entitled to.

    The new regulation, therefore, does not fill the gap of the lack of the right of transfer. On the contrary, it extends the time of fulfillment, without giving any reasons justifying the granting of the leave after the expiration of the calendar year (see, instead, the relevant provision of German law – Article 7 BUrlG “Time of taking leave, transfer and compensation for leave not taken). Therefore, the new regulation may, again, lead to circumventions.

     

    Unpaid leave

    Article 62 of Law 4808/2021 institutionalizes unpaid leave. This leave is provided by a legal provision, for the first time, in the national legal order. However, it is not an unknown institution as in practice it was already provided to employees even before its general introduction.

    The pre-existing regime

    Given the lack of general legislation under the previous regime, unpaid leave was introduced only for specific categories of employees based on collective arrangements (Collective Employment Conventions or arbitration awards), labor regulations or special provisions.

    Of course, this leave could also be granted to an employee on the basis of an agreement with the employer. Its granting was therefore not obligatory, nor could it be imposed unilaterally by either the employee or the employer.

    As was, however, consistently accepted in case-law, unpaid leave was a formal case of suspension of employment on the basis of an agreement concluded between the employer and the employee. The specific recognition of its character as a contractual suspension affected the formation of the obligations and the rights of the parties.

    In particular, during this leave, the employee did not, of course, have to provide their services. Accordingly, the employer was not required to pay wages and, therefore, was not required to cover the employee’s insurance contributions. However, the duration of this leave was considered working time, since its issuance did not terminate the employment contract. It was therefore measured in determining the amount of any severance pay (end 751/2018 Supreme Court). At the same time, with the expiration of this leave, the employee had to return to their previous job and duties.

    Current regulation

    What is immediately mentioned above was confirmed, basically, by article 62 of law 4808/2021. This provision introduces, as already mentioned, for the first time-explicitly, in fact, the institution of unpaid leave in the private sector.

    The condition for its granting is the individual written agreement between the employer and the employee. The maximum duration of this leave is set at one year. However, it is possible to extend it by a newer agreement of the parties.

    Is it possible to grant unpaid leave of more than one year from the beginning? It is not right, in our opinion, to set a ceiling on its granting, since the possibility of a contractual extension is accepted from the beginning. Therefore: it is obviously possible for the agreement to last longer than one year, but it is preferable to agree on an annual, initially, duration and then, in order to avoid problems and concerns, to extend it according to this regulation.

    The new law explicitly recognizes the nature of unpaid leave as a contractual suspension. It stipulates, in particular, that during it, the employment contract is suspended and no insurance contributions are due. In addition, there is an obligation to post the written individual agreement for the granting of unpaid leave to the Information System “ERGANI” by the employer, while a copy must be notified to e-EFKA.

    In addition, §2 of the same provision stipulates that after the expiration of unpaid leave, the rights and obligations of the parties from the contract of employment are revived.

    Finally, the fact that the duration of unpaid leave is considered working time is confirmed by the recent, No. 64597 / 03.09.2021, Circular of the Ministry of Labor. This Circular points out that for the receipt and calculation of the days of the employees’ annual leave, the period during which the employee was on unpaid leave is taken into account, referring, also, to article 2 §2 of law 539/1945.

     

    Holidays

    With the provision of article 60, law 4808/2021 codifies in a single provision the days of obligatory holiday. In addition, it expands the list of existing holidays. It adds to the existing holidays the 1st of January and the holiday of the Epiphany.

    Therefore, the single list of holidays now includes the following: (a) 1st of January, (b) Epiphany (6th of January), (c) 25th of March, (d) Easter Monday, (e) 1st of May, (f) day of the Assumption of Virgin Mary (: 15th of August), (g) 28th of October, (h) day of the Birth of Christ (: 25th of December), (i) 26th of December.

    At the same time, §2 of the same provision provides for the possibility of designating additional holidays, up to five per year, as days of mandatory or optional holidays for the whole country. The responsibility for this designation is vested in the Minister of Labor and Social Affairs. The relevant decisions are issued after the opinion of the Supreme Labor Council and are published in the Government Gazette.

    In addition, it is possible to set some days as local holidays. Responsible for their appointment are the Regional Governors, without the condition of the previous opinion of Supreme Labor Council. This procedure is followed, respectively, at national and local level, for the abolition or change of the planned holidays.

    Finally, special mention should be made in article 63 of law 4808/2021: it concerns the exceptions from the obligatory rest of Sunday and from the aforementioned public holidays. This provision amends by adding to articles 7 and 9 of the Royal Decree no. 748/1966 additional economic activities of businesses that are allowed to employ staff on Sundays and public holidays. Of course, in these cases the protective arrangements concerning the additional remuneration of the employees and the granting of their weekly rests take place.

     

    The annual leave as well as the (in practice, sometimes, provided) unpaid leave serves different needs of the employees. The new institutional framework attempted to correct the incorrect wording concerning of the first and the legislative gap concerning the second. In both cases the attempt was not successful. It is a fact, however, that they cover, albeit in part, problems that businesses – and of course employees – have been facing for a long time. We look forward to future, necessary, improvements.

    And so we do regarding the subject of the holiday of Sunday (and even more so regarding this specific holiday). The relevant provisions remain incomplete. The steps are taken timidly. We go blind to the point that we choose not to leave the market to self-regulate. We go blind to the point that we believe that we, alone, have the power to prevent what is happening in the western world.

    For now.-

     

    Stavros Koumentakis
    Managing Partner

     

    P.S. A brief version of this article has been published in MAKEDONIA Newspaper (October 10th, 2021).

    Disclaimer: the information provided in this article is not (and is not intended to) constitute legal advice. Legal advice can only be offered by a competent attorney and after the latter takes into consideration all the relevant to your case data that you will provide them with. See here for more details.

  • Employee leave (protection of employees receiving them)

    Employee leave (protection of employees receiving them)

    The recent law on labor relations (: Law 4808/2021) dedicates an extensive section to employees’ leave. We already analyzed the leave aimed at balancing work and personal life for parents and caregivers. We also analyzed the leave aimed at protecting the institution of family. But it is well known to the “inhabitants of Jerusalem” that employees often do not dare, for obvious reasons, to claim all the leave they are entitled to. This was precisely the reason, obviously, that compelled the legislator to provide independent and specific, relevant, protection. In this context, we will deal with the provisions aimed at protecting those employees who exercise their rights to obtain leave or any flexible regulation of their working hours.

     

    Non-discrimination (Article 47)

    The prohibition of discrimination pervades all labor law. This provision is moving in that exact direction. In this context, a ban on unfavorable (or less favorable) treatment for employees who either (a) exercise rights to obtain leave or to obtain a flexible regulation of their work; or (b) file a complaint within the company or initiate legal proceedings for relevant compliance of the business.

     

    Protection against dismissal and burden of proof (Article 48)

    This regulation concerns the protection of employees from dismissal. In particular, the dismissal of an employee is prohibited because he / she requested or received leave or flexible regulation and / or exercised relevant rights.

    However, if, despite the prohibition, an employee is fired for such a reason or after such an event, the employer is obliged to notify, in writing, the reasons for the dismissal. In case, in fact, that the relevant obligation is not observed, a presumption (rebuttable) is created in favor of the violation of the prohibition of dismissal.

    It should be noted, however, that this provision is, unfortunately, not well written. It does not specify as a condition, indicatively, that e.g. the leave should be requested within a specific period. In other words, can the employee raise a relevant ground of invalidity two years after making such a request? This would obviously be abusive, but unfortunately the wording of the provision does not rule it out.

    In the context of the above protection of the employee, there is also a reversal of the burden of proof in favor of them (the employee). Specifically, in the event of such a dispute, the employee only needs to cite facts, which seem to support the belief that they were fired for one of the above, prohibited, reasons. In this case, the employer is the one who bears the burden of proving the effect of the dismissal for reasons other than the ones prohibited. However, this provision does not apply in criminal proceedings.

    This provision also includes provisions for special protection against dismissals. Specifically, according to what was already in force, it is forbidden to dismiss a pregnant woman – and later a mother – for a period of 18 months from the birth (or even longer due to illness), unless there is a great reason. An innovation, however, is the similar ban, which is also introduced for the working father for six months after the birth, provided, here too, that there is a great reason. However, it is expressly provided that the reduction of performance due to the mother’s pregnancy or the family obligations of the working parent cannot be considered as a great reason.

     

    Legal protection (Article 49)

    This provision sets out the legal protection that employees are entitled to when they consider that they have been harmed by a breach of their leave-related rights. Every employee, therefore, has the right to seek protection, for this reason, before the competent courts. Also, to appeal to the competent administrative authorities (including the Labor Inspectorate and the Ombudsman).

    At the same time, the (under certain conditions) possibility is provided for legal entities and associations of persons (including trade unions) to appeal in the name and on behalf of the affected employees.

     

    Penalties (Article 50)

    Violation of employers’ obligations on issues related to leave is not without sanctions and expenses. Specifically, the employer-offender is subject to administrative sanctions (: fine from € 300 to € 50,000). In case of recurrence, a temporary cessation of the operation of the business or its department / division is imposed (article 24 of law 3996/2011). Also, criminal sanctions are provided [: imprisonment of at least 6 months and / or a fine of 900 € (article 28 of law 3996/2011)].

    At the same time, any violation of the principle of non-discrimination leads, inter alia, to a claim for full compensation of the victim (actual loss or loss of earnings and moral damages).

     

    Some employers, as mentioned in the introduction, do not “honor” their obligations regarding the granting of due leave to their employees. The sword of Damocles sword is hanging “over their heads”, as a series of potential sanctions arise from the recent labor law. Civil, administrative and criminal sanctions: And none of them is “minor”.

    And it is true that the threatened sanctions do not make a society fair or its citizens law-abiding.

    It is certain, however, that these (completely dissuasive) regulations will inevitably make employers more cautious about the possibility of violating their employees’ rights.

    Stavros Koumentakis
    Managing Partner

     

    P.S. A brief version of this article has been published in MAKEDONIA Newspaper (October 3rd, 2021).

     

    Disclaimer: the information provided in this article is not (and is not intended to) constitute legal advice. Legal advice can only be offered by a competent attorney and after the latter takes into consideration all the relevant to your case data that you will provide them with. See here for more details.

  • Employee leave (: protection of employees and the institution of family)

    Employee leave (: protection of employees and the institution of family)

    The issue of employees’ leave, in the light of the recent law (Law 4808/2021), began to concern us in our previous article. We have already approached the leave aimed at balancing the professional and personal lives for parents and caregivers, which has been provided for in the framework of Directive 2019/1158 / EU. In the present article, we will be concerned with the leave aimed at protecting the family. In this this article, which will be the last on this issue, we will be concerned with the protection of employees who exercise their right to take leave or make equivalent, flexible arrangements.

     

    Leave and special maternity protection (Articles 34 & 36)

    The first of the specific provisions extends the right of working mothers to receive the post-partum part of the maternity leave, lasting nine weeks, to working mothers who adopt a child up to eight (8) years old in their family. The same mothers are also recognized the right to receive all kinds of remuneration and allowances associated with the above leave.

    With the pre-existing regulation, the corresponding rights were provided for surrogate mothers, since the year 2017.

    The second of the above provisions (article 36) extends the benefits of the special maternity protection of article 142 of law 3655/2008 (: allowance from the Manpower Employment Organization etc) to adoptive and presumed mothers.

     

    Leave for medically assisted reproduction (Article 35)

    The specific regulation provides the right to employees who are subjected to medically assisted reproduction methods to take leave of seven (7) working days with remuneration. A relevant certification by the treating physician or the director of the medically assisted reproduction unit is a precondition.

     

    Childcare leave (Article 37)

    This provision codifies the existing arrangements for paid parental leave. It concerns, alternatively, both (natural, adoptive, foster, presumed) parents. It is noteworthy, in fact, that it is provided even if the other parent does not work.

    The time one can take this leave varies. Its starting point is determined by the expiry of the maternity leave or of the special maternity protection (Article 36) or of the parental leave (Article 28). The law, therefore, enacts into law the Opinion of the Legal Council of the State No. 124/2018. The latter makes it clear that childcare leave is granted in full, regardless of the granting of the special maternity protection benefit and parental leave.

    This leave extends for a period of thirty (30) months from the point it can be taken. During this period, the working parent is entitled to reduced working hours [by (1) hour], following a relevant application of theirs. This may, in fact, be implemented by them arriving later than the specified time, leaving earlier or an stopping sometime during the work day. Alternatively, it can be agreed that the employee:

    (a) Will work for two (2) hours less every day for a period of eighteen (18) months and one (1) hour for the following six months,

    (b) Will be granted full days of leave, within the week, of a corresponding total number of hours, to which the working parent is entitled under this leave.

    (c) Will be granted equivalent continuous leave, granted once or in intervals.

    For adoptive or foster parents, the right to obtain this leave is granted from the inclusion of a child of up to eight (8) years of age in the family.

    In cases of divorce, separation or birth of a child out of wedlock, this leave is granted to the custodial parent, subject to a different agreement of the parents.

    At the same time, the law explicitly regulates the cases of part-time employment. In these cases, the childecare leave is granted in proportion to the daily working time.

     

    Leave for the monitoring of school performance (Article 38)

    This regulation provides for the right to leave to working parents with full-time or part-time employment contracts, in order for them to monitor the school performance of their children. It extends, in fact, the right of the parents to the said leave until the 18th year of age (completed) of the child, instead of the 16th that was valid until the previous law, as well as, regardless of age, in the case of children with disabilities.

    This leave (paid leave for up to four working days per year) grants the working parent the right to be absent from work for certain hours (and / or full day) in order to visit their child’s school.

    The right to obtain this leave is common to both parents. Therefore, it is possible that either one of the parents or both of them will use it, by sharing it. Joint statements by parents to their employers are therefore required, including the way that this leave will be obtained.

     

    Marriage leave (Article 39)

    This is a paid leave and is not offset by the employee’s annual leave. Its duration is a full working week. That is five (5) days, ie for five days of work and in six (6) days in cases of six days of work per week. It is also granted in the case of concluding a cohabitation agreement.

     

    Prenatal examination leave (Article 40)

    This provision provides for the right of pregnant employees to be allowed to leave work, without a pay cut, in order to undergo prenatal examinations if the relevant examinations are to be performed during working hours.

     

    Reduced working hours for parents of children with disabilities (Article 41)

    This provision concerns parents (by birth, adoptive, sponsors, presumed), who have children with mental or physical disabilities. These parents are given the right to request a reduction of their working hours by one hour per day, with a corresponding reduction in their salary. The prerequisites are:

    (a) the certification of the disability by the insurer concerned; and

    (b) employment in a company or holding where at least 50 persons are employed.

     

    Leave due to illness of a child or other dependent member (Article 42)

    This provision gives the employee the right to take unpaid leave in case of illness of dependent children or other family members (as defined in §2 of the article). It amounts to up to six (6) working days per year and is administered as a lump sum or in installments. In case of a parent (by birth, adoptive, foster, presumed), who takes care of two children, the duration of the leave is increased to eight (8) days. If they have more than two children, the duration is fourteen (14) days.

    Leave due to serious illness of children (Article 43)

    This provision repeats and codifies the provisions of article 51 §1 of law 4075/2012. Specifically, the right to obtain special parental leave is granted to working parents (by birth, adoptive, foster, presumed) due to serious illnesses of their children. In fact, the new regulation removes – for the granting of this leave – the age limit of eighteen (18) years of children for specific diseases (severe mental retardation, DOWN syndrome, autism).

    The duration of this leave amounts to ten (10) working days per year with remuneration. This leave is an individual right of every working parent. It is granted, with absolute priority, if other paid leave is exhausted – not including the annual not including the annual common leave leave.

     

    Leave due to care of a hospitalized child (Article 44)

    The specific provision repeats and codifies the regulations of article 51 §2 of law 4075/2012. This provision gives working parents (adoptive, natural, sponsors, presumed) the right to receive special parental leave, due to the hospitalization of their children – due to illness or accident. The new regulation removes the pre-existing age limit of eighteen (18) years and is granted regardless of the age of the child.

    This leave is unpaid and lasts as long as the (child’s) treatment. In any case, however, its duration may not exceed thirty (30) days per year. This leave is an individual right of every working parent and is granted if related paid leaves are exhausted – not including the annual regular leave.

     

    Leave for single-parent families (Article 45)

    This provision codifies and gives legislative force to article 7 of the national collective labor agreement / 15.4.2002. It concerns, in particular, working parents (by birth, adoptive, foster, presumed), either widowed or unmarried, who have the sole custody of their child. These parents are granted paid leave of six (6) working days per year, in addition to that to which they are entitled under other provisions. In case the one who has the right to the specific leave has three or more children, its duration is increased to eight (8) working days per year.

     

    As mentioned in the introduction, but also in analyzing individual regulations, an attempt was made with the (above) recent law to compile and codify the provisions that refer to the leave related to the protection of the family. Also, make the (necessary) extension of the relevant leave to employees who need it but also to align with the conditions of the time.

    A common denominator of these regulations is the (absolutely necessary) protection of the family but also, of course, of the working parents.

    It is a given that the specific regulations are not legally sound. Given that regulations like these will not solve the demographic problem of our country but will undoubtedly assist I helping the daily lives of employees, their relief and, through them, assist the businesses in which they provide their services.

    However, in order not to make the specific regulations “void”, the legislator considered it appropriate, and rightly so, to protect employees who exercise their relevant rights. However, we will talk about this protection in our next, and last on this topic, our article.-

     

    Stavros Koumentakis
    Managing Partner

     

    P.S. A brief version of this article has been published in MAKEDONIA Newspaper (September 26th, 2021).

     

    Disclaimer: the information provided in this article is not (and is not intended to) constitute legal advice. Legal advice can only be offered by a competent attorney and after the latter takes into consideration all the relevant to your case data that you will provide them with. See here for more details.

  • Violence and harassment at work: the rights of victims and the role of the Labor Inspectorate

    Violence and harassment at work: the rights of victims and the role of the Labor Inspectorate

    

    In our previous article, we were concerned with the extent of this phenomenon, the obligations of the employer, the new (expanded) role of the Occupational Physician as well as the relevant (now necessary) Policies and relevant provisions of the Labor Regulations. The subject will “close”, in this article, with the rights of the affected persons, the expanded role of the Labor Inspectorate but also some “traps” of the relevant law.
    

    

    Rights and protection of victims (a. 12)
    

    Affected persons (even if the disputed relationship between them and the business has ended), are entitled:
    

    (a) to seek judicial protection by claiming compensation for their positive and detrimental damages as well as their moral damage;
    

    (b) to appeal to the Labor Inspectorate and the Ombudsman and, in addition,
    

    (c) to lodge a complaint within the business.
    

    When the offender is an employee (or works under another relationship), the employer is obliged to take the necessary measures against the accused, in order to prevent similar incidents / behaviors and not have them repeated. Such measures, which the employer is obliged to take, are (indicatively): the recommendations, possible changes in the position, the schedule, the place or the way of providing work of the accused. Also, the termination of the employment relationship or cooperation of the latter (: accused). It should be noted here, of course, that there is a (self-evident) restriction: the right to complain should not be exercised abusively to the detriment of the accused.
    

    The rights of the victim are presented in an extremely extended way:
    

    The victim is entitled to leave the workplace for a reasonable time (but after written notification of the employer). It is noteworthy that the non-provision, for this reason, of their work does not deprive them of their salary. However, in addition, any adverse consequences to them are not tolerated (especially when the employer is the perpetrator or when they do not take the necessary measures or when these measures are not capable of stopping the problematic behavior). In the event that the employer disagrees with the departure of the affected employee from the job, their only option is to appeal to the Labor Inspectorate (a. 18).
    

    Finally, it should be noted that in case of violation by the Employer, or their representative, of the prohibitions set by law regarding the issues of violence and harassment, administrative sanctions are imposed (art. 19, §2 a’).
    

    

    Prohibition of retaliation
    

    In order to provide the necessary support to the affected employee, it is explicitly prohibited to take any retaliation or countermeasures against them (a. 13).
    

    Indicatively, any adverse treatment is prohibited. And so is the termination of their contract (or forcing them to resign). It should be noted that, moreover, such retaliatory actions are identified as invalid in the event that they, nevertheless, take place.
    

    

    Possibility of appeal by associations (a. 14)
    

    Interestingly, the rights of the affected employee can be (also) exercised by legal persons, associations and trade unions. Necessary condition is for them to justify a legal interest and, in addition, to have the consent of the victim.
    

    In this context it is possible e.g. for a trade union organization to exercise an appeal on behalf of the victim (or to intervene in support of the victim) before the competent administrative or judicial authorities.
    

    The affected person is recognized, of course, the right to intervene and / or to cancel such a procedure, which was initiated by a third party on their behalf, regarding the specific issues.
    

    

    The burden of proof and its reversal
    

    The burden of proof rests, according to the law (a. 15), on the accused (with the exception of the criminal trial). What does this mean? It means that the accused is the one with the obligation to prove that the incident / event attributed to them did not take place. Which is illogical and, in fact, impossible. The (legal) argument adopted by the authors of the provision is unsubstantiated.
    

    The reversal of the burden of proof on issues of violence and harassment has occupied us extensively in our previous articles. Closing this article we concluded:
    

    “With all the required (unlimited and absolutely necessary) respect for victims of violence or harassment, it is extremely dangerous to reverse the burden of proof introduced by the bill to be put to the vote. As long as this provision remains as is, it is a given that the one that will be most at risk is the truth: Any dissatisfied employee (or former employee) will be able to invoke an incident of violence or harassment in order to strengthen their place. In this case, the defendant (: colleague, boss, subordinate or employer) will be called to do the impossible: prove the non-existence of the reported event.
    

    Which is illogical. And, of course, unfair.
    

    However, a possible persistence on this provision (under the weight of political choices or, possibly, social pressure) will certainly make some people happy:
    

    Us lawyers!
    

    Let’s choose.- »
    

    

    The role of Labor Inspectorate
    

    An independent Department for the monitoring of violence and harassment at work is established at the Labor Inspectorate (a. 16 & 17). Its object is the resolution of related labor disputes, the monitoring of the observance of the relevant obligations by businesses. Also, the provision of advice to businesses and employees as well as the maintenance of the Register of Employers to whom relevant sanctions were imposed.
    

    In case of complaint (a. 18 & 19) before the Labor Inspectorate, the Ombudsman is informed, where required. The examination of the relevant case is carried out as a priority, in relation to the other cases pending before it. The relevant process must not only be completed within two months but also ensure the privacy of the persons involved and their personal data.
    

    In case of confirmation of incidents that are subject to the provisions of the law, administrative sanctions are imposed at the end of the relevant procedure. They are the ones that will be provided by a Ministerial Decision to be issued (a. 22) which, in addition, will deal with the procedural issues related to the examination of the relevant disputes.
    

    

    Specifically: the interim measures taken by the Labor Inspectorate
    

    Given the specificity (but also the nature of the disputes related to the issue), the possibility of temporary measures imposed by the Labor Inspectorate is necessary (a. 19 §3), in order to have an immediate, as far as possible, management of an emergency situation as a rule.
    

    Therefore, in the event that danger is suspected (for the life, health or safety of an employee), the accused is called “as soon as possible” to provide explanations. The Labor Inspectorate retains the possibility to issue an order, with immediate effect, to the employer subject to one or more of the following temporary measures- with a duration until it is proven that there is no risk. It is entitled, in particular, to order:
    

    (a) the removal of the accused from the place of work with payment of all their remuneration;
    

    (b) staff shift changes;
    

    (c) the transfer of the accused to another department;
    

    (d) the employment of the accused by teleworking or distance work depending on the nature of their duties.
    

    It should be noted here that in the final wording of the law (in contrast to the bill that was put to consultation) it appears, logically, as possible to revoke or maintain the temporary measures that will be decided by the Labor Inspectorate with the conclusion on the dispute or the audit or with a new decision of the Labor Inspector.
    

    Finally, in the event that the employer does not comply with the temporary measures set out in the order, a fine is imposed for each day of failure to implement them.
    

    

    Violence and harassment within the terms of the employment relationship (or on this occasion) is, unfortunately, a phenomenon on a large scale – as recent research has shown.
    

    It is, in fact, a matter of ensuring a sense of security in the workplace for all employees – especially women – who are most likely to be affected.
    

    The provisions of the recent labor law on violence and harassment are absolutely sufficient. In fact, it is expected that they will prove capable of managing the existing, and very serious, relevant problem.
    

    There is, of course, the danger of using the law as a means of pressure to achieve an unfair benefit. Unfortunately, such phenomena have already begun to occur.
    

    We hope, however, for its utilization for the benefit of the afflicted and the weak.
    

    Exclusively.-
    

     
    

    

    Stavros Koumentakis
    
Managing Partner
    

     
    

    P.S. A brief version of this article has been published in MAKEDONIA Newspaper (September 5th, 2021).
    

     
    

    Disclaimer: the information provided in this article is not (and is not intended to) constitute legal advice. Legal advice can only be offered by a competent attorney and after the latter takes into consideration all the relevant to your case data that you will provide them with. See here for more details.
    

     
    

     
    

     
    

     
    

    
			
    
		
    
		
	
  • 
		
		
    
			
    Violence and harassment at work: Their (reasonable as well as self-evident) ban
    
			
    Violence and harassment at work: Their (reasonable as well as self-evident) ban
    
			
    Absolutely no one was waiting for the voting of the recent, but also particularly important, law on labor relations (Law 4808/21, Government Gazette A 101 / 19.6.21) to be informed of the existence of incidents of violence and harassment in the workplace. The phenomenon is as old as work itself. Accepted in the past, tolerated later, reprehensible and punishable today. The “me too” movement drastically contributed to the acceleration of the relevant regulations. What is its management by the legislator? In this article we will deal with the extent of this phenomenon, the basic concepts, the obligations of the employer, the new (expanded) role of the Occupational Physician. Also, the relevant (now mandatory) Policies as well as the (necessary) provisions of the Labor Regulations. The subject, due to its extent and seriousness, will be “closed”, in an article to follow, with the rights of the affected persons and the (expanded) role of Labor Inspectorate.
    

    

    The extent of the phenomenon
    

    We should probably state that we are surprised by the results of the research on workplace bullying that was recently conducted (25.2 / 1.3.21) by Kappa Research on behalf of MRK Consulting and was presented, among others, to the members of Hellenic Human Resources Management Association. Not that we did not know about the phenomenon. We did not imagine, however, its extent.
    

    Here are just a few of its striking conclusions:
    

    85% of the participants (men and women) consider that the phenomenon of workplace bullying is so widespread that it is a serious social problem.
    

    Participants state that they have suffered or perceived to take place: inappropriate comments of sexual nature – 19% of participants (but 29% of women), physical violence – 9% (: 10% of women), suggestions of sexual content as a prerequisite for professional development -7% (: 12% of women), sexual assault -3% (: 5% of women).
    

    It is more than obvious that violence and harassment in the workplace mainly, but not exclusively, affects women.
    

    Four out of ten employees (both in the private and public sectors – 46% are women) say they have been the target of workplace-related bullying (more often: verbal violence, job degradation and gossip – not least sexual harassment and physical abuse).
    

    Nearly one in two employees who reported being bullied at work are still employed by the business (or organization) in which they were targeted, and about 20% of victims continue to experience bullying, even today.
    

    The reaction of the colleagues of the victims is interesting – in two ways. 43% of the victims state that their colleagues, in addition to the main source, participated in their bullying. On the other hand: only 52% of the victims received support from their colleagues.
    

    And as for the management of the business: usually it knows but it does not react. Only 1 in 10 businesses take effective action after a bullying incident.
    

    

    Prohibition of violence and harassment
    

    Therefore, taking into account the size of the problem, we read with satisfaction in the specific, mentioned in the introduction, legislation: “All forms of violence and harassment, which occur during work, whether associated with it or arising from it, including violence and harassment due to gender and sexual harassment are prohibited.” (Article 4 §1).
    

    

    But what is violence and harassment?
    

    According to the law (art. 4) “violence and harassment” are behaviors, acts, practices or threats that aim or may lead to any form of harm (: physical, psychological, sexual or financial) of the victim.
    

    “Harassment” is behavior that aims at or may lead to a violation of the dignity of the person and the creation of a problematic environment for the victim and, finally,
    

    “Harassment due to the gender of the victim” is gender-related behaviors that target or violate a person’s dignity and create a problematic (intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or aggressive) environment. This includes, but is not limited to, sexual harassment, as well as behaviors associated with sexual orientation, expression, identity, or gender characteristics.
    

    

    Field of application
    

    The specific law covers (a. 3) the employees in the Private and Public Sector. It covers all employees, trainees, apprentices, volunteers and even those looking for work and the uninsured.
    

    

    Prohibition of violence and harassment; where?
    

    Prohibited violence and harassment may take place (a. 4):
    

    (a) in the workplace (where, for example, the employee works, takes a break, in personal hygiene and care areas, in locker rooms, even in accommodation provided by the employer),
    

    (b) while commuting to and from work and even during travel, education and work-related events and social activities; and
    

    (c) in communications related to work of any nature (face to face or using technology or computers).
    

    

    What are the obligations of the employer – in general
    

    Employers (and those who represent them) are obliged to (art. 5):
    

    (a) show zero tolerance for violence and harassment;
    

    (b) receive, investigate and manage any relevant complaint in confidence and with respect;
    

    (c) provide assistance to any competent authority upon request;
    

    (d) provide employees with information on potential related risks and prevention and protection measures (including: obligations and rights of employees and employer);
    

    (e) post in the workplace and make accessible information on relevant procedures at business level as well as the contact details for the competent authorities.
    

    

    The obligation of the employer to inform the employees
    

    Employers are obliged (art. 6) to inform their employees about the legislation on health and safety at work and how it is implemented by the business. Also, they are obliged to inform them about safety and health risks but also about protection and prevention measures and activities. It should be noted that the specific risks and measures include those for combating violence and harassment at work (of course, sexual harassment included).
    

    

    The obligation of the employer to assess risks and take measures
    

    The employer is obliged (among other things a. 7 / a. 42 §6 law 3850/2010) to:
    

    (a) draw up a plan of preventive action and improvement of working conditions in the enterprise;
    

    (b) assess psychosocial risks, including violence and harassment and sexual harassment; and
    

    (c) take measures to prevent, control and mitigate these risks.
    

    

    The (new) responsibilities of the Occupational Physician in matters of violence and harassment
    

    The occupational physician must now (d. 8 / d. 17 §2 & 18 §2 law 3850/2010) (also) advise on issues of violence and harassment-including sexual harassment. They advise, inter alia, on the integration or reintegration of persons who are discriminated against or victims of violence and harassment.
    

    The occupational physician now supervises (art. 17 §2 law 3850/2010) and informs (also) on issues of violence and harassment-including sexual harassment. Also: they inform employees about the dangers of their job, as well as ways to prevent them, among which are the risks of violence and harassment – including sexual harassment.
    

    The occupational physician, finally, provides emergency treatment – including in cases of violence in the workplace.
    

    

    Policies to combat violence and harassment
    

    The law mentioned in the introduction establishes, for the first time (art. 9), the existence and implementation of Policies to combat violence and harassment. It is important to note that their implementation should take place no later than 19.9.21.
    

    The existence of these Policies is mandatory for businesses with more than twenty employees. They should, in fact, include the employer’s declaration of zero tolerance for violence and harassment. Also, the rights and obligations (of both employees and the employer) to prevent and deal with such incidents or behaviors.
    

    They also include (at least – among others): assessment of the relevant risks at work, measures for the prevention, control, reduction, treatment & monitoring of such incidents or behaviors and risks, information and awareness actions of the staff, mentioning of a liaison- responsible person for guiding and informing employees on such matters, the protection of employment and the support of employees – victims of domestic violence.
    

    

    Policies for managing internal complaints
    

    Along with the existence of policies for the fight against violence and harassment, the Policies for the management of the relevant internal complaints are also mandatory (article 10). Here, too, the policies mandatory for businesses with more than twenty employees are identified.
    

    These Policies concern the management as well as the process of receiving and examining the specific complaints (with respect to the protection of the victim and to human dignity).
    

    They include (at least) secure and easily accessible communication channels for receiving complaints, identifying the persons responsible for receiving them, examining and managing them. The policies ensure the investigation of the complaints with impartiality and the protection of the confidentiality and personal data of victims and complainants. They provide for the (absolutely necessary) prohibition of retaliation and further victimization of the affected person and the cooperation with the competent authorities. They determine the consequences in case of violation.
    

    

    Content of Labor Regulations and Business Collective Employment Agreements
    

    Policies for the prohibition of violence and harassment (a. 9) as well as those for the management of internal complaints (a. 10) should be the subject of collective bargaining (as the content of the General National Collective Employment Convention or the Work Regulations -a. 11). However, in the absence of trade unions and employees’ councils, the Policies are drawn up by the employer, after the latter informs the employees and posts the relevant policy draft in the workplace or notifies them, in order to receive their views.
    

    When there is a Work Regulation (or the obligation to draft one), its content must include provisions for disciplinary offenses, disciplinary proceedings and disciplinary penalties in the context of or following complaints of incidents of violence and harassment.
    

    The issuance of a Ministerial Decision with examples of the aforementioned Policies is expected (a. 22).
    

    

    Incidents of violence and harassment in the workplace have never disappeared. But in the past, they were treated as “normal”. Let us remember the 1963 film “Tis Kakomoiras” (aka “Bakalogatos“), the adventures of the (very much) likeable Zikos but also the behavior of his boss against him, which was in fact logically expected, as the former was “just the help”.
    

    Such phenomena must no longer be tolerated.
    

    Working women are, unfortunately, affected dramatically more than their male colleagues.
    

    The legislator belatedly and, rather, after having fallen behind, followed the trends of the time. The “me too” movement rightly affected working relationships as well.
    

    Employees should be and feel safe. Women and men.
    

    Of course, in the legislator’s attempt to protect the victims, some exaggerations were not avoided, but regarding them see our, relevant, next article.-
    

    

    Stavros Koumentakis
    
Managing Partner
    

     
    

    P.S. A brief version of this article has been published in MAKEDONIA Newspaper (August 29th, 2021).
    

     
    

    Disclaimer: the information provided in this article is not (and is not intended to) constitute legal advice. Legal advice can only be offered by a competent attorney and after the latter takes into consideration all the relevant to your case data that you will provide them with. See here for more details.
    

    
			
    
		
    
		
	
  • 
		
		
    
			
    Rest Time, Readiness to telework and Right to Disconnect
    
			
    Rest Time, Readiness to telework and Right to Disconnect
    
			
    The readiness to provide work has already occupied us in our previous article (: 3/2020). We referred there to the forms of readiness to work that do not have a legal basis but are defined by case law (ie: actual, simple and call readiness). We pointed out the difference that is observed between the Greek case law and the case law of the ECJ in terms of defining the concept of simple readiness; consequently: in terms of the working time. Finally, we mentioned the risk of interfering with the employee’s private life due to the use of technology. As the traditional form of teleworking is increasingly being replaced, these issues are proving to be important and relevant. The rest time that the employee is entitled to, legally and morally, but also their right to disconnect – as a means of ensuring their rest time, are the issues that will occupy us in this article.
    

    

    Call readiness and digital technology
    

    The continuous availability / readiness of the employee for work, by utilizing / using digital technology, could be equated with call readiness (one of the forms of readiness). A readiness that, in practice, is achieved with the use of the employee’s laptop, tablet and even smartphone.
    

    The employee is, through technology, continuously (on a theoretical, only, level?) at the disposal of their employer. As we acknowledged in our article mentioned in the introduction, the employee “… can, and is no longer unusual, undertake and perform a task that does not require their physical presence.” This was followed by repeated lockdowns and the need to adapt to new data. The emergence of telework as the main, in some cases, way of providing work, proved that the physical presence can easily, and to a greater extent, be replaced, than what we believed here in our country (: in the small “village” in the world).
    

    During the gradual transition to pre-pandemic normalcy, we find that the provision of work with physical presence is increasingly being replaced by telework.
    

    Our concerns at the time are becoming more and more relevant today: “Reading a professional e-mail could be considered equivalent to interfering with the employee’s private life.” The expansion of the use of digital technology at work and consequently, the increased potential for telecommuting, raises serious concerns. Concerns regarding, in particular, the application of the arrangements for working time limits – but most importantly: regarding the employee’s time of rest.
    

    

    Call readiness and time of rest
    

    Each 24-hour work period corresponds to a minimum rest period of 11, consecutive, hours (: Directive 2003/88-article 3).
    

    Both the ECJ case law and the Greek case law exclude from working time (: therefore, they are included in rest time), the time when the employee is on call. Of course, provided that the employee was not ultimately called upon to work.
    

    However, the means of digital technology provide the possibility of direct, but also instantaneous, communication between the employer and the employee. The latter is often called upon, (also) after working hours (and therefore during their rest time), to deal with matters relating to their work. Sometimes in minutes – maybe less. Often, a short e-mail or, respectively, a phone call is enough.
    

    The major issue that arises, in this case, concerns whether the short-term, sometimes infinitesimal, employment interrupts the employee’s rest time. If we answer in the affirmative, a new (rest) period of duration of 11 (again) consecutive hours for the employee should start, after the interruption of their rest time.
    

    Various views have been expressed on this issue. As far as we know, the issue has not yet been addressed by the ECJ, which could help to draw safer conclusions.
    

    Among the other approaches, the (teleological) reduction of the scope of the provisions of Articles 3 and 5 of the Directive has been proposed (: daily and weekly, respectively, rest), for those cases where working hours outside working hours are too short. This view, however, is, quite rightly, strongly criticized. It is argued, in particular, that this interpretation would require an amendment of the Directive. Otherwise, the assumption of the provision of work for a short period of time, which does not interrupt the rest time, does not seem to be in line with the purpose of Articles 3 and 5 of the Directive (Zerdelis, European Labor Law, 2020, §7 / ​​42).
    

    But we can go one step further: as the data has changed dramatically since this Directive entered into force, it proves necessary to re-approach its content.
    

    

    The new labor law, the right to disconnect and readiness to provide telework
    

    Does any short-term employment outside of working hours, through digital technology, in the end, interrupt the rest time? The answer is not easy.
    

    However, the solution can be sought in the provisions of the new labor law (Law 4808/2021) in the case of telework and / or from its provisions-when telework is not provided.
    

    Specifically, the new law provides for the right of disconnection for teleworkers (art. 67 §10 law 4808/2021). It stipulates in particular that: “The employee who teleworks has the right to disconnect, which is their right to abstain completely from the provision of work and in particular, not to communicate digitally and not to answer phone calls, e-mails or any form of overtime communication and during their legal leave. Any discrimination against an employee who teleworks is prohibited, because they exercised the right to disconnect…”
    

    Also, in the same article, it is provided that: “In addition to the obligations under The Presidential Decree no. 156/1994 (A ‘102), within eight (8) days from the start of telework, the employer is obliged to inform the employee in any appropriate way, including by e-mail, the working conditions that differ due to teleworking, which include at least the following:
    

    a) The right to disconnect of par. 10.
    

    (e) Agreement for readiness to provide telework, its time limits and deadlines for the employee’s response.” (article 67 §5 a’ and e’ law 4808/2021).
    

    Readiness to provide telework (as regulated by this law) should be compatible with work and rest time limits. The disclosure, in this context, of the working conditions by the employer, as required by law, should adequately (and contractually) define and structure the right of disconnection.
    

    

    Telework not only entered our country’s labor relations violently but also (as we have repeatedly argued in a series of presentations, workshops and articles) “is here to stay”.
    

    And it did.
    

    The issues created by the new, at least for our country, specific form of work are many. And, not infrequently, serious and hard to solve. It is a given that not only the national but also the European legislator will be called upon, unfortunately a posteriori, to manage them.
    

    Until then, we are called to manage them using the grid of tools provided by law.
    

    Above all, however, it is necessary for each business that is to meet its needs through telework of their employees, to have a tailor-made employment contract entailing the working conditions regarding telework and readiness to provide it.
    

    

    Stavros Koumentakis
    
Managing Partner
    

     
    

    P.S. A brief version of this article has been published in MAKEDONIA Newspaper (August 8th, 2021).
    

     
    

    Disclaimer: the information provided in this article is not (and is not intended to) constitute legal advice. Legal advice can only be offered by a competent attorney and after the latter takes into consideration all the relevant to your case data that you will provide them with. See here for more details.
    

    
			
    
		
    
		
	
  • 
		
		
    
			
    Deniers vs Business & Economy: 1-0
    
			
    Deniers vs Business & Economy: 1-0
    
			
    In our previous article, at the beginning of May 2021, we referred, among other things, to the obligation (or not) of employees to get vaccinated under the then existing legal regime. The data are changing extremely rapidly – especially with regard to the ongoing pandemic: While we observed new cases at the end of June be around 200-300 per day, we suddenly see them approaching 3,000. Nightmare scenarios predict, very soon, up to 10,000 cases per day. The fourth wave of the pandemic is already underway. The D variant threatens to “shake up” the health system again. Its weapon is the unvaccinated. Primarily the (for whatever reason) Deniers. But what is their impact on the operation of businesses? And what are the “weapons” of the latter to deal with them?
    

    

    The Prime Minister’s announcements. The enforcement of vaccinations (targeted)
    

    In the recent prime ministerial announcements of 12.7.21 regarding the handling of the pandemic, we heard, among other things, that the immediate vaccination of those employed in elderly care units, in the health sector, in the Armed Forces will become mandatory. Expected – among the sanctions – is the suspension of employment contracts of liable persons, who choose to not comply – despite the fact that they are employed in “critical structures”.
    

    We have also heard about the possibility of marking some businesses that operate with staff who have been vaccinated or have gotten the illness in the last six months. This was followed by the (absolutely recent) relevant CMO [: D1a / in house protocol no. 44779 / 15.7.2019 (Government Gazette B 3117 / 16.7.21)], where in article 1 the “extraordinary measures of protection of public health per field of activity” were identified. Among them we find that for specific, exclusive, categories of businesses (eg those that operate in the fields of “Live shows” and “Catering” (: §§12 & 16) there is the possibility of their operation, should the businesses choose so, with the appropriate marking, solely with people who have been vaccinated or become ill in the last six months. Also, should all their employees have either been vaccinated and / or become ill during the last six months, those businesses have the right to display the following sign by affixing it in a prominent (obvious) place:
    

    

    But if one of its employees is among the Deniers, the business loses the relevant privilege that comes with a self-evident, obviously not insignificant, financial loss.
    

    

    Human rights – the right to vaccination and the right to its denial
    

    Those who deny vaccinations invoke, among other things, their (violated) human rights. This particular topic has occupied us, in detail, in our article mentioned in the introduction. Very briefly:
    

    Let us not forget that the most competent body to speak on human rights is none other than the ECtHR (: European Court of Human Rights). In a very recent decision (: 8.4.21-Vavřička and others v. Czech Republic) it assessed, inter alia, that those who refuse to comply should face the consequences of their refusal. And so did the decision of the CoC no. 2387/20 (which is really interesting and especially important for our country).
    

    Therefore: each of us has, indeed, the right to choose to be vaccinated or not. But they must also be ready to accept the (legal) consequences of their refusal.
    

    

    Implementation of the enforced vaccinations and the consequences for the “non-compliant”
    

    On the issue of vaccinations, we already have, since the declaration of the pandemic, the necessary, constitutionally tolerated (more precisely: constitutionally imposed) legislation.
    

    The (ongoing) National Vaccination Program, but also the possibility of compulsory vaccination of specific population groups, take place within the framework of these legislations. Among them is the possibility “for any partial or complete suspension of labour obligations” of the liable persons (inc .: articles 4 §3 law 4675/20 and article 1 law 4682/2020-which ratified the 25.2.2020 Legislative Decree and, in particular, article 1 §§2 & 4 thereof).
    

    The situation is beginning to clear up, at least on a legal level, as we expect, precisely in this context and on the basis of the aforementioned prime ministerial announcements, the ministerial decisions that will make mandatory the immediate vaccination of specific categories of employees and the suspension of employment contracts of those refusing to comply. It would not surprise us if more categories of employees were included in the future (eg teachers and so on) …
    

    But what about other businesses? Those who (co)constitute the backbone of the real economy of the country?
    

    

    The obligation to ensure the life & health of employees-Sanctions
    

    Businesses have extremely important (general and specific) obligations regarding “the health and safety of employees in all aspects of work” (indicative articles 42 & 43, law 3850/20). They must, inadvertently, comply with their specific obligations.
    

    Let us not forget, moreover, that “the obligations of the safety technician, the occupational physician and the employees’ representatives do not affect the principle of the employer’s responsibility” (article 42 §3, law 3850/20). What does this mean? Violation of the obligations of businesses related to ensuring the health of employees burdens them as well, without a doubt. It even raises administrative and criminal sanctions.
    

    Businesses must therefore (for reasons of compliance with the law – but above all for moral reasons) take the appropriate measures to ensure the highest good: the lives and health of their employees.
    

    The Sword of Damocles is hanging over them in case they omit to do so.
    

    

    Businesses in the field of production, services and trade-The stress-The impasses
    

    In recent months, since the launch of the National Vaccination Program, businesses have increasingly turned to their legal advisers to investigate their ability (or not) to require the vaccination of their employees who refuse to get vaccinated. Lately the questions (and the stress) are getting more and more intense.
    

    The basis of the relevant considerations is twofold. On the one hand, the continuation of the smooth operation of the business and on the other hand, the (reasonable) pressures they receive from the other (vaccinated and anxious for their own and their relatives’ health) employees. Especially the last issue is not minor: How to respond to the anxiety of a vaccinated employee, that they or someone close to them belongs to a vulnerable group, when they are forced to work with their unvaccinated colleague?
    

    Lately we have seen employees’ representatives write public letters asking for (in fact) mandatory vaccination of their colleagues. We have also seen businesses threatening, in a disguised form or not, their employees who deny getting vaccinated or offering them various (financial and not) incentives in order to get the “valuable” vaccine.
    

    We must be clear: It is a given that businesses are not entitled, at least under the current legal scheme, to impose the vaccination of their employees. Any such enforcement exposes them, irreparably, to a variety of sanctions.
    

    The legislative background is also not there.
    

    Unfortunately, the data is “blurred” even by official sources. We find that there are, wrongly, attempts made to pass on the relevant responsibility to businesses. A responsibility that belongs, without a doubt, to the executive authority and the legislature.
    

    

    The right (?) to the suspension of employment contracts and the (without compensation) dismissal of the deniers
    

    The Minister of Development and Investment, Mr. Georgiadis, argued, in his absolutely recent (17.7.21) television appearances, that a business has the right (in general) to suspend the employment contract of its unvaccinated employees. And also that it has the right to dismiss them, without compensation in fact, as non-vaccination is a great reason for dismissal.
    

    It should be clearly emphasized, however, that the specific positions are very wrong, at least at a legal level, (in the case, of course, that they were correctly recorded during their publication). In brief:
    

    Dismissal of an employee, without payment of the compensation due by law, is provided in absolutely specific cases. Non-vaccination is not included.
    

    Also: it has not been ruled, at least to date, that a non-vaccination of an employee is an great reason for dismissal.
    

    Finally: the suspension of the employment contract of an employee does not seem possible, in the present circumstances, as there is a lack of a relevant legal background (: see the Ministerial Decision, in particular, provided in article 1 §4 of 25.2.2020 Legislative Decree-ratified by Article 1 of Law 4682/2020).
    

    

    The treatment of Deniers by businesses
    

    It is a given that (for whatever reason) the deniers endanger the operation of the business. Also: the life and health of their colleagues and their relatives – especially those belonging to vulnerable groups.
    

    Employers must take the necessary (and possible) measures on a case-by-case basis (: regular rapid tests and, possibly, molecular tests, teleworking, relocation, isolation from other employees, etc.). But it is obvious that the possibilities seem completely, on a practical level, limited. Moreover, not all businesses have multiple options and their jobs and / or spatial planning are not suitable for such alternatives.
    

    The weight is transferred, unjustifiably, to them.
    

    And it is inconceivably heavy.
    

    

    Businesses are entitled (and obliged) to take all necessary measures to ensure the life and health of their employees. They are entitled, in this context, to require – but are unable to impose – their vaccination. Even when the (other) vaccinated employees (or people in their environment) belong to vulnerable groups and their lives are indeed in danger.
    

    How can one explain to the latter that their lives are somewhat less important than the lives of those housed in nursing homes or healthcare facilities – where the vaccination of employees will be institutionally imposed?
    

    Businesses are entitled (and obliged) to take all necessary measures to ensure their operation and continuity. The entrepreneur is the one who will be called to face any problems in their operation: the halt of the production line, the inability to deliver or the inability to serve their customers. Even when the cause is the illness of their employees – because of their refusal to be vaccinated.
    

    How can one explain to the latter that their whole business can rightly be endangered by individual employees who unjustifiably refuse to be vaccinated?
    

    And finally, how can one explain to the customers of a restaurant business how they can, safely, be served by the unvaccinated waiters, cooks or helpers of the restaurant / tavern that, under different circumstances, they would visit? And, in addition, how could they unjustifiably choose another establishment, with the valuable (above) mark, to enjoy the delicacies?
    

    It is therefore obvious, based on the above data, that businesses are completely helpless against any employee who refuses (even for non-medical reasons) to be vaccinated. Let’s hope that, soon, they will be provided with the absolutely necessary legislative tools to manage such situations.
    

    Until then, however, it seems perfectly obvious that:
    

    Deniers vs Business & Economy: 1-0.-
    

    

    Stavros Koumentakis
    
Managing Partner
    

     
    

    P.S. A brief version of this article has been published in MAKEDONIA Newspaper (July 25, 2021).
    

     
    

    Disclaimer: the information provided in this article is not (and is not intended to) constitute legal advice. Legal advice can only be offered by a competent attorney and after the latter takes into consideration all the relevant to your case data that you will provide them with. See here for more details.
    

    
			
    
		
    
		
	
  • 
		
		
    
			
    Management of working time – a missed opportunity?
    
			
    Management of working time – a missed opportunity?
    
			
    It is already a law of the state (: law 4808/21, Government Gazette A 101 / 19.6.21) the enactment of new (and massively reformed) provisions that regulate labor issues. Among its provisions is one that refers to the management of working time. A provision that, on its own, became the leading argument of the opponents of the relevant bill. Is it fair?
    

    This issue has already occupied us, repeatedly. It has been more than a year since the signatory reviewed the issues relating to eight-hour working days, that arose since its inception. Immediately afterwards, for the first time in our country, a specific provision for the regulation of working time was proposed- also by the signatory. A proposal by the standards of Germany and Cyprus, which successfully utilized it – for the benefit of both employees and businesses.
    

    

    The legislative background
    

    Was the current regulation of working time an inspiration of the executive authority “to abolish the eight-hour work day”, “to abolish overtime” or “to pay the overtime of the employees on their day off”, as it is accused?
    

    Directive 2003/88
    

    Directive 2003/88 concerns the management of working time. It aims to improve the safety, hygiene and health of employees at work. It ensures that adequate rest periods are available for employees and it specifies the minimum daily and weekly rest periods. It also explicitly specifies the maximum limits of weekly working time (48 hours-including overtime). In contrast, the maximum daily working time limits (13 hours) are calculated a contrario.
    

    The most important provision (and the basis for the management of working time): in a period of seven (7) days, the working time may not exceed, on average, 48 hours (including overtime – Article 6 par. b’).
    

    The implementation of this Directive, due to its increased importance, is not left to “the patriotism of the Greeks”. In a series of decisions, the ECJ imposes an obligation on Member States to prevent any exceeding of the maximum weekly working time (Case: C-55/18, paragraph 43) but also to ensure that workers have minimum daily and weekly rest periods and the compliance with the upper limit of the average weekly working time (Cases: C-14/04, Paragraph 53, C 484/04, Paragraphs 39 and 40, C-243/09, Paragraph 64).
    

    National legislation on the management of working time
    

    The above Directive is the one that was the basis for the transposition of this system into our national law (Article 42 of Law 3986/2011), in a completely distorted way and in practice (as it turned out) – absolutely inapplicable. And this is because: if there was no trade union organization in a business, it was not possible to implement a working time management system (!!!).
    

    In any case, this provision provided for two alternatives:
    

    (a) First alternative: Ability to provide additional working hours for a specific period (: increased employment) and subtract them, respectively, from the working hours of another period (: reduced employment). The period of periods of increased and reduced employment may not exceed a total of 6 months in a period of 12 months (Article 42 §1 par. a) and
    

    (b) Second alternative: Ability to allocate 256 working hours within a calendar year to periods of increased work that cannot exceed 32 weeks per year. During the remaining period of the year, work is provided of reduced duration, respectively, in relation to the maximum legal time limits (article 42 §2 par. a).
    

    

    The new regulation
    

    The inclusion in the management of working time at the request of the employee
    

    The new regulation (a. 59 §1, law 4808/2021) does not change at all the immediately above framework for the regulation of working time; it only removes the (unreasonable for its implementation) condition of the existence of a trade union organization (or a possible dispute on its part) in the business to be implemented.
    

    In this case, a relevant request of the employee is sufficient: “If there is no trade union or an agreement is not reached between the union and the employer, the working time management system can be applied, at the request of the employee, after a written agreement… ».
    

    Is the eight-hour work day management adversely affected?
    

    Obviously not! In order to prove so, let’s take a look at the relevant provision (art. 55 §1):
    

    “In all sectors of work and in all sectors of economic activity, full-time employment is set at forty (40) hours per week, which may be divided into five-day or six-day weekly work, in accordance with the applicable provisions, collective labor agreements or arbitral awards. When a five-day weekly work system is applied, the full conventional working hours amount to eight (8) hours per day, while when applied is a system of six days a week, the full working hours are six (6) hours and forty (40) minutes per day… »
    

    Is overtime and “overwork” pay adversely affected?
    

    On the contrary, the wages arising from the overtime hours (article 58) are higher in relation to what is in force today. Indicative (for five-day work):
    

    (a) The 41st to the 45th hour per week is paid increased by 20%.
    

    (b) For more than 45 hours per week (and up to three per day & 150 per year) each hour is paid increased by 40%.
    

    (c) In cases where exceptional permission is granted by the competent body, in excess of the maximum, annual, limits, each hour is paid increased by 60%.
    

    (d) For each hour of illegal overtime (ie beyond the above limits and / or for those that did not comply with the legal requirements) each hour is paid increased by 120%.
    

    The Greek legislator, succumbing to pressures in 2011, provided (?) the possibility for businesses (: a. 42 Law 3986/2011) to proceed with the management of the working time of their employees if, exclusively, there was a union of employees; if there was not, not even a relevant discussion could take place.
    

    

    With the extensive reform of provisions of the labor legislation, an attempt was made to re-approach (also) the regulation of working time. The pressures exerted on the parliamentary majority, as well as the aforementioned, blunt, accusations addressed to it, led to a simple re-approach of the legislation a decade ago. “Same old, same old” that is, with the only difference that the specific management will be possible to be requested by the employees themselves.
    

    And the needs of the business?
    

    Don’t even mention them!
    

    Businesses, moreover, do not have a voice; they are neither able to occupy the Syntagma Square nor to block the Parliament…
    

    A historic opportunity seems to have been lost.
    

    We look forward to the next.-
    

     
    

    

    Stavros Koumentakis
    
Managing Partner
    

     
    

    P.S. A brief version of this article has been published in MAKEDONIA Newspaper (July 4, 2021).
    

     
    

    Disclaimer: the information provided in this article is not (and is not intended to) constitute legal advice. Legal advice can only be offered by a competent attorney and after the latter takes into consideration all the relevant to your case data that you will provide them with. See here for more details.
    

    
			
    
		
    
		
	
  • 
		
		
    
			
    Prohibition of violence and harassment at work: The reversal of the burden of proof
    
			
    Prohibition of violence and harassment at work: The reversal of the burden of proof
    
			
    We have been watching, since this summer, the intense debate and reactions against the labor bill – before it even saw the light of day. Its opponents are mainly focused on the issues of the management of working time, for which our older but also our very recent article. It is, of course, not the only important issue raised by law 4808/21 (Government Gazette A 101/21). Even more important, perhaps, is the (infamous – but not much-discussed) “reversal of the burden of proof” of violence and harassment. One does not need to have the gift of foresight to be certain that this particular provision will, unfortunately, prove to be problematic.
    

    

    The (reasonable) prohibition of violence and harassment at work
    

    Incidents of violence and harassment in the workplace are an old phenomenon and, unfortunately for all of us, more or less familiar. It is true that none of us could have imagined its magnitude — although as a society we did not underestimate it at all. All that until a completely recent investigation that took place on behalf of the Human Resources Management Liaison of Greece brought us before the reality.
    

    Therefore, taking into account the magnitude of the problem, we are very pleased to read this piece of legislation.
    

    “All forms of violence and harassment that occur during work, whether related to or arising from it, including violence and harassment due to a person’s sex and sexual harassment” are prohibited (Article 4 §1).
    

    

    The reversal of the burden of proof
    

    The (under this title) provision of Article 15 of the bill that is under consultation, provided:
    

    “Where the person concerned refers to facts or evidence which give rise to an incident of violence or harassment in accordance with this Part, the defendant shall bear the burden of proving in court or before a competent administrative authority that such circumstances have not occurred. The preceding subparagraph shall not apply to criminal proceedings.”
    

    The same provision (under the title “burden of proof” – this time) in the text submitted for a vote to the Parliament (and passed – Article 15) is as follows:
    

    “When the affected person claims that there is violence and harassment in accordance with this Part, paragraph 1 of article 24 of law 3896/2010 (A ‘207) applies.”
    

    This provision (Article 24. §1, Law 3896/2010) provides: “When a person falling within the scope of this law claims that they are subject to discrimination because of their sex, in accordance with the above provisions, and invokes, before a court or other competent authority, facts or evidence that give rise to an incident of direct or indirect discrimination because of their sex, or that sexual or other harassment within the meaning of this law has occurred, the defendant bears the burden of proving in court or to another competent authority that the principle of equal treatment between men and women has not been violated”.
    

    Avoiding unnecessary, legal, analysis, taking a simple approach we conclude: Nothing, in essence, differs from the original form of the provision. The person accused of the incident of violence or harassment is the one who must prove that the specific incident did NOT take place. How fair / right / safe is this reversal of the burden of proof?
    

    

    The legislator’s justification
    

    In the Analysis of the Consequences of the Regulation we read the thoughts of the author of the specific provision on the specific subject:
    

    “Article 15, in accordance with the non-discrimination legislation in force, hence the reference to it, provides for the immediate protection of those affected by the introduction of a procedural rule on the reversal of the burden of proof, when the person presents facts or evidence, from which the occurrence of an incident of violence or harassment under the above provisions is estimated as probable, with the result that the defendant bears the burden of proving in court or before a competent administrative authority that such circumstances did not occur. It is noted that an exception is introduced from the relevant rule for criminal proceedings, where the presumption of innocence applies”.
    

    Is it right to align with anti-discrimination legislation?
    

    

    The proof of a negative fact
    

    The rule
    

    It is well known that proof of a negative event is impossible (eg: “I did not speak badly to you”, “I did not hurt you”, “I did not steal your wallet”). Because of this, the one claiming the occurrence of an event must also prove it (: 338 Code of Civil Procedure).
    

    

    The exception to the rule
    

    An exception to the above-mentioned (under a) rule regarding the reversal of the burden of proof is found in Directive 54/2006 (article 19) and in law 3896/2010 (article 24) which transposed it. Also, in Directive 43/2000 (article 8) and in Law 4443/2016 (article 9) that transposed it.
    

    However, it is important to emphasize that the specific Directives concern the treatment of discrimination (ie events that took place) and the (necessary) ensuring of the principle of equal treatment of employees.
    

    In order to reverse the burden of proof, under these Directives and under the related legislation, it is required that the one alleging the violation of their provisions will have fully established the facts or, at least, provided evidence for the causal link of their less favorable, in relation to the protected (under these Directives), features (: grounds of distinction).
    

    In other words: In these cases (under these Directives and legislation), the plaintiff’s facilitation concerns the unproven causal correlation of their ill-treatment with one of the suspected criteria of discrimination.
    

     
    

    In particular: the case of sexual harassment
    

    Sexual harassment is also considered gender discrimination. However, the reversal of the burden of proof does not mean that it is presumed that the sexual harassment actually took place.
    

    On the contrary, there is a presumption of a causal link – that is, a link between sexual harassment (discrimination) and ill-treatment which has already been demonstrated by the plaintiff (employee), who also invoked its indications.
    

    In this case, the defendant (employer) must prove the following negative fact: that the different treatment (event that took place) is not causally linked to any of the features protected by the Directives (: grounds of discrimination).
    

    Therefore, the cases which the author of this regulation attempts to link are not relevant at all;
    

     
    

    The conclusion
    

    It is a given that our country is not bound by any Directive or International Convention for this reversal of the burden of proof, in relation to such incidents.
    

    However, in the light of the above considerations, it is not legally correct, in the firm belief of the signatory, to relate the reversal of the burden of proof in the above Directives to the reversal of the burden of proof of Article 15.
    

    

    The (reasonable) concerns
    

    It is true that the provision in question raises reasonable concerns as the accused will be called upon to prove the absence of an “incident of violence or harassment” – in other words: a negative event. The risk of public humiliation and of a conviction, at any level, will be hanging above not only those who committed unjust actions, but also above those who did absolutely nothing of the sort.
    

    

    With all the required (unlimited and absolutely necessary) respect for victims of violence or harassment, it is extremely dangerous to reverse the burden of proof introduced by the bill to be put to the vote. As long as this provision remains as is, it is a given that the one that will be most at risk is the truth: Any dissatisfied employee (or former employee) will be able to invoke an incident of violence or harassment in order to strengthen their place. In this case, the defendant (: colleague, boss, subordinate or employer) will be called to do the impossible: prove the non-existence of the reported event.
    

    Which is illogical. And, of course, unfair.
    

    However, a possible persistence on this provision (under the weight of political choices or, possibly, social pressure) will certainly make some people happy:
    

    Us lawyers!
    

    Let’s choose.-
    

     
    

     
    

    

    Stavros Koumentakis
    
Managing Partner
    

     
    

    P.S. A brief version of this article has been published in MAKEDONIA Newspaper (June 20, 2021).
    

     
    

    Disclaimer: the information provided in this article is not (and is not intended to) constitute legal advice. Legal advice can only be offered by a competent attorney and after the latter takes into consideration all the relevant to your case data that you will provide them with. See here for more details.
    

    
			
    
		
    
		
	
  • 
		
		
    
			
    Working time and its recording
    
			
    Working time and its recording
    
			
    

    

    

    

    

    The discussion (and the reactions) on the bill for the extensive but also important reform of the labor law-the consultation on which was completed quite recently (: May 27, 2021) have recently been becoming increasingly intense. Among the issues it deals with are those concerning the working time and his recording. The relevant time limits have already occupied us in our previous article. On the occasion of this draft law, it is worth taking a special look at the relevant issues, in the light of European legislation and jurisprudence and what is currently in force in our country.
    

     
    

    Directive 2003/88 on working time limits
    

    In general
    

    Directive 2003/88 concerns the organization of working time and aims to improve the safety, hygiene and health of employees at work. It requires that adequate rest periods for rest be available to employees (5).
    

    In this context, this Directive proceeds to a very specific definition of the minimum daily and weekly rest periods. Also: the maximum limits of weekly working time. On the contrary, the maximum daily working time limits follow a contrario.
    

     
    

    The working time limits
    

    In particular, as regards the minimum time limits for daily and weekly rest, this Directive provides that:
    

    With a reference period of twenty-four hours: Every worker is entitled to a minimum daily rest period of 11 consecutive hours per 24-hour period (Article 3).
    

    With a reference period of a week: Every worker is entitled to a minimum uninterrupted rest period of 24 hours plus the 11 hours’ daily rest referred above (article 5 §1).
    

    It follows, a contrario, that the daily working hours may not exceed thirteen hours.
    

    At the same time, the above Directive explicitly stipulated that in a period of seven (7) days, the working time may not exceed, on average, 48 hours (including, in fact, overtime – article 6.b’).
    

     
    

    Imposition of obligations in the Member States
    

    This Directive requires Member States to comply with its minimum standards of minimum daily and weekly rest time and maximum weekly working time. It does not, however, specify how Member States will ensure the implementation of its provisions, which is left at their discretion. Based on the “wording” of the Directive, the Member States are obliged to take the “necessary measures” in order to be compatible with the minimum protection limits set by the Directive as a whole.
    

     
    

    The requirements of the ECJ – The recording of daily working time
    

    However, the discretion of the Member States and its threshold for taking the “necessary measures” is judged and limited by the ECJ. The national provisions of each Member State may not invalidate the minimum protection requirements laid down in Directive 2003/88 (Case: C-55/18, paragraph 43).
    

    The ECJ also accepts, of course, that Member States must guarantee compliance with the above minimum rest periods. Also, they must prevent any exceeding of the maximum weekly working time. In this way, the full effectiveness of this Directive is ensured (Case: C-55/18, paragraph 43).
    

    The ECJ further acknowledges that Directive 2003/88 does not specify the specific way in which Member States are required to provide the above guarantees. It acknowledges, however, that, despite the discretion of the Member States, the latter must guarantee the full and practical effectiveness of the minimum requirements of the Directive. In other words: to ensure, in fact, that employees have the minimum daily and weekly rest periods and that the upper limit of the average weekly working time is observed (Cases: C-14/04, Paragraph 53, C 484/04, paragraphs 39 and 40, C-243/09, paragraph 64).
    

    In the same context, the ECJ requires that, in order to ensure the practical effectiveness of Directive 2003/88, Member States should oblige employers to implement an objective, reliable and easily accessible system for measuring the daily working time of each employee (Case: C-55/18, paragraph 60). On the contrary, it accepts that the obligation to record only overtime does not achieve the purpose of the Directive and is incompatible with it (Case C-55/18, paragraph 52).
    

     
    

    Our national law – The time card
    

    The obligations of the employer
    

    It is known in our national law that, at least to date, there is no corresponding obligation to record the daily working time of each employee.
    

    The employer, in particular, is obliged to register in the information system ERGANI (article 36 par. 1 law 4488/2017):
    

    (a) Any change or modification of the working hours or the organization of the working hours of the employees, no later than the day of the change or modification of the working hours or the organization of the working hours (and in any case before the provision of work by the employees),
    

    (b) any “overwork” and
    

    (c) any legal overtime.
    

    The obligation to record working time in our country is therefore limited to recording in the ERGANI the (legal) exceeding of working time limits. Therefore, Greece must, under EU law, establish a system for recording the total daily working time of each employee. The choice of registration system is at the discretion of the Member State. Therefore, it does not matter if it will be in digital or physical medium.
    

     
    

    The (ten-year long) discussion about the time card
    

    Despite the non integration of a system for recording the total daily working time in our national law, the institutionalization of the time card took place a decade ago.
    

    In particular, Law 3996/2011 provides that “Under the responsibility of companies, IKA – ETAM is informed daily and in real time about the working time, the arrival and departure time of the employees of the company who are subject to the insurance of IKA – ETAM. This procedure is done by using a time card in an electronic staff presence clock (hourly measurement) and the data are transmitted electronically or otherwise to IKA – ETAM… “(article 26 par. 1. a΄ and b΄).
    

    However, the above provision has not been applied. In particular, the necessary Ministerial Order was never issued, which would set out the technical specifications for the implementation of the provision on the time card. In addition, the budget feasibility study, which was envisaged for the implementation of this measure, was never completed (article 26 par. 6 of law 3996/2011).
    

    Then, with Law 4144/2013, it was provided that: “The employer is obliged to register in the information system of the Ministry of Labor, Social Security and Social Solidarity “ERGANI” any change or modification of working hours or organization of working time of employees, no later than the day of the change or modification of the working hours or the organization of the working time, and in any case before the provision of work by the employees, as well as before the provision of the “overwork” and the legal overtime” ( article 80 par. 1 par. a).
    

     
    

    The bill
    

    The (new) provision of the time card
    

    The bill mentioned in the introduction provides, among its other regulations, for the institutionalization of the digital time card (article 74 of the bill). It is provided, specifically, that the “Businesses – employers are obliged to have and operate an electronic system for measuring the working time of their employees, directly connected and interoperable, in real time, with the ERGANI INFORMATION SYSTEM II “(article 74 par. 1 of the bill).
    

    “Work time is measured using a digital time card. When used, it is recorded in real time in the ERGANI INFORMATION SYSTEM II any change concerning the working time of the employees, such as, in particular, the start and end time of the work, the break, the exceeding of the legal working hours and any kind of leave” (article 74 par. 2 of the bill).
    

    The concerns
    

    The above provision of the digital time card seems, at first, compatible with the requirements of the ECJ. However, there are some concerns regarding the implementation of this measure. They are basically (also) related to the outstanding issues that need to be regulated by the Ministerial Orders to be issued. Among others those concerning: (a) the Digital Time card (article 79 par. 1 of the bill), (b) the protection of personal data (article 79 par. 2 of the bill), (c) the characteristics of the enterprises (field, size, type) to which the digital time card system will be applied and (d) the employees who will fall into the category of executives (article 79 par. 4 of the bill).
    

    Finally, particular concerns are raised about the consequences that arise when the employee inadvertently omits the mandatory registration (because they forgot, for example, to “pass” the digital card from the recorder).
    

    The bill provides that “If, during the on-site inspection in a company, it is found that the digital card of an employee is not activated, a fine of ten thousand five hundred (10,500) euros is imposed on the employer per employee who does not have an activated digital card. In the event that in three audits, within a period of twelve (12) months, the violation of the present is ascertained, a temporary cessation of operation of the company is imposed for a period of fifteen (15) days. (Article 74 §4 of the bill).
    

    A fine of €10,500 is already provided in cases of undeclared work. On the contrary, in cases where during the on-site inspection discrepancies are found between the staff schedule on a given day and the (declared) employees, the fines reserved are much lower.
    

    It seems, therefore, illogical to equate the fine for undeclared work with the case of (involuntary) error in recording the employee’s daily schedule. Therefore, the “non-activated card” case should be clearly identified. The same treatment cannot be reserved in the case where the digital time card was never activated by an employee of a specific company and in the case that on a specific day the employee, by mistake, did not activate it.
    

     
    

    The Greek legislator has shown obvious, until today, cowardice in adopting what is provided by the European legislation for the working time limits. Also, for the implementation of those measures that it adopted for the confirmation of the working time limits (: time card).
    

    It is already time, on the one hand, to align with the relevant directions of European legislation and, on the other hand, to adopt the necessary measures for its enforcement.
    

    Let’s hope that the bill that will eventually be passed will manage to achieve the necessary balance (also in terms of working time limits) between European legislation and case law, employees’ rights and, of course, the promotion of entrepreneurship
    

     
    

    

    Stavros Koumentakis
    
Managing Partner
    

     
    

    P.S. A brief version of this article has been published in MAKEDONIA Newspaper (June 13, 2021).
    

     
    

    Disclaimer: the information provided in this article is not (and is not intended to) constitute legal advice. Legal advice can only be offered by a competent attorney and after the latter takes into consideration all the relevant to your case data that you will provide them with. See here for more details.
    

    
			
    
		
    
		
	

	
	

		
	

	
	
	

		
	

	
















	





						
						
This site is registered on wpml.org as a development site. Switch to a production site key to remove this banner.