Tag: employment

Trial Period of Employment Contracts

The recent labor law (: law 5053/2023) incorporated the 2019/1152 Directive (“Transparent and predictable working conditions in the EU”) into the national legal order. Among the regulations of this law, which have raised particular debates and serious questions, is the one that concerns the trial period (art. 4) in case of entering into a dependent labor contract. Through this trial period, the employer intends to determine the skills and suitability of the employee, before committing through the definitive employment contract.

The Status before Law 5053/2023

Trial Employment Contract

Until today (and before the above law) transactional practice allowed the contracting parties to agree that the definitive employment contract of indefinite or definite duration would be drawn up after a successful trial of the employee.

The probationary contract could take the form of a fixed-term employment contract, in which case it would be automatically terminated at the end of that period. The employer would, in fact, be the one who would decide, after the trial period, whether or not to enter into a (new) definitive contract. Any termination of the employment contract before the expiration of the agreed certain time, would require a material reason (672 Civil Code). Unless the employer has reserved in their favor the right to terminate the contract freely and at any time – by observing the conditions for termination of the employment contract of indefinite duration.

The trial contract could also take the form of an indefinite term employment contract with clause (usually dilutive). The employer would be able to reserve in their favor a right on the basis of which, for a certain reasonable time from the beginning of the contract, it would have a trial character. During this reasonable time (and even before its expiration) it would be possible to terminate it without compensation. This if, “according to an objective and fair judgment” the employee was not found to be suitable for their work (1719/2012, NOMOS Legal Database).

As there was no specific legislation, the duration of the trial period in trial contracts could be determined by the individual employment contract. However, it should not exceed the reasonable time limit that would be necessary for the employer to assess (or not) the suitability of the employee they hired. This was required by the principles of good faith, so that the employee’s uncertainty regarding the finalization of the employment contract would not be maintained for a long time. Also, in order to avoid the circumvention of the provisions concerning the termination of the employment contract. The, case by case, reasonable (on the upper) limit was dependent on the type and nature of the work for which the recruitment is made. Besides, for the assessment of professional abilities, sometimes more time is required and sometimes (due to the nature of the work) the minimum (1719/2012, NOMOS Legal Database).

The “Trial Period” In the Case of the Contract of Indefinite Period

Based on the pre-existing regulation (article 74 §2 section a’ of Law 3863/2010, added by Art. 17 §5a of Law 3899/2010): “…employment under an employment contract of indefinite duration is considered as employment of a trial period for the first twelve (12) months from its effective date and which may be terminated without notice and without severance pay, unless otherwise agreed by the parties”. According to jurisprudence, this provision establishes a legal scheme. Specifically, it characterizes for the first time, legislatively, the aforementioned twelve-month waiting period as probationary employment. That is, a period during which the employer has the opportunity to ascertain the skills and suitability of the employee. In fact, in the event that they judge, in an objective and fair judgment, that they are not suitable for the position in which they were hired, the employer was entitled to terminate the contract, without warning and without payment of severance pay. In this case, however, the review of a complaint for the abuse of powers was not excluded (258/2019 Supreme Court, NOMOS Legal Database). It should be noted, however, that the aforementioned twelve-month duration has been criticized by the theory as contrary to the aforementioned Directive (:2019/1152).

The 2019/1152 Directive

As stated in the above Directive, every entry into the labor market or transition to a new position should not be subject to prolonged insecurity from the part of the employee. Therefore (and according to the European pillar of social rights), trial periods should have a reasonable duration (27). It sets, to this end (art. 8 §1), a maximum duration: “ Member States shall ensure that, where an employment relationship is subject to a probationary period as defined in national law or practice, that period shall not exceed six months.».

The New Regulation

For the integration of the aforementioned Directive, a special regulation was introduced (: art. 4 n. 5053/2023) (: art. 1A in Presidential Decree no. 80/2022) for the probationary period and the probationary employee. In fact, it concerns both open-ended and fixed-term contracts.

Regarding open-ended contracts: The employer has the possibility, when concluding an open-ended employment contract, to agree with the employee a trial period of up to six (6) months. During this period, the contract or the employment relationship is under test (art. 1A §1 Presidential Decree no. 80/2022).

Regarding fixed-term contracts: The trial period, in these cases, is proportional to the total time provided for in the contract. In any case, it cannot exceed ¼ of the total employment period – with a maximum of six months. In the event that the contract is renewed for the same position and with the same duties, provision for a new probationary period is not allowed (art. 1A §4 Presidential Decree no. 80/2022).

The Case Of The Successful Trial Period

But what will be considered as the starting time of the employment contract? In the event that the employer considers that the employee’s probationary service is successful and retains them in their company (after the end of the probationary period or even before it), the starting time of the contract is considered the initial date of employment of the employee. And this concerns all of their rights based on their employment (art. 1A §2 Presidential Decree no. 80/2022).

The Case Of The Unsuccessful Trial Period

Serious questions, however, arise in the event that, during or at the end of the probationary period, the employer determines that the employee’s probationary service has not been successful. In this case the contract under trial is “automatically terminated”. The time of (trial) employment is counted as work time for all the rights that were produced up to the point of its termination (art. 1A §3 Presidential Decree no. 80/2022). But what does ” self-justified solution” mean?

(a) It could, in one sense, be argued that after the trial period the employer chooses at their (unchallenged) discretion whether to terminate or continue the contract. And if during (and not at the end of) the probationary period, the employer rules that the probationary service of the employee has not been successful, how, if at all, will this ” self-justified” solution of the employment contract come about?

(b) In another sense “self-justified solution” could be argued to mean (contra to the letter of the law) termination of the employment contract – without the need to meet the formal conditions of the termination (given that for the first twelve months the provision for no notice and no compensation is still in force). This, however, means that it would be possible, in this case, to check the essential conditions of the complaint.

(c) According to a third, finally, point of view it could be argued that a heresy is established. Possibly: solvent. In case, therefore, of its payment, the contract will be automatically terminated for the future (1719/2012 Supreme Court). Alternatively: deferral under which the conclusion of the definitive contract takes place. However, in the case where we accept the existence of a heresy, the solution could not be uncontrolled: its fulfillment (or not) is controlled on the basis of good faith (207 Civil Code).

Extension Of The Trial Period

The new regulation, as mentioned above, also concerns the fate of the trial period in case of suspension of the employment contract: In the event that the employment relationship is suspended, for any reason, during the trial period, then the duration of the last period is extended accordingly. (: art. 1A §5 Presidential Decree no. 80/2022).

Application of Protective Provisions

During the trial period, all the protective provisions for the employee linked to their contract or employment relationship apply. In particular (i.e. indicatively), articles 162 to 179 and §1 of article 339 of Presidential Decree no. 80/2022.

Maintaining the Validity of the (Effectively) Twelve-Month “Trial Period”

The recent labor law (: law 5053/2023) attempted to regulate the trial period of the dependent labor contract. Unfortunately, however, they did not link this trial period with the conditions for terminating the indefinite-term employment contract.

It is recalled that by express regulation (: art. 325A Presidential Decree no. 80/2022-as added by article 19 of law 5053/2023), employment with an employment contract of indefinite duration for the first twelve months from the day of its validity (which, in this case, are not referred to as a probationary period) may be terminated without notice and without severance pay. Unless otherwise agreed by the parties.

In the event that the contracting parties agree on the trial period of article 1A, the time period of the trial period is counted in the time of the aforementioned twelve months.

The retention, however, of the twelve-month waiting period regarding the (non) obligation to pay compensation and give notice in the event of termination of the indefinite-term employment contract, raises concerns (it could be argued: unreasonable ones) regarding the compatibility of the national legal order with the above Directive.

The need to establish a trial period of a reasonable duration at the start of the dependent labor contract is a European reality. It also constitutes a reasonable business necessity. Under the current legislative conditions, a series of important problems are created, the resolution of which is not sought by the recent labor law. It is better not to extend the legal uncertainty that has been created nor to wait for the jurisprudence to deal with it: it is desirable that they be clarified legislatively (or in another, legally tolerable way).-

Stavros Koumentakis
Managing Partner

P.S. A brief version of this article has been published in MAKEDONIA Newspaper (December 10th, 2023).

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.

December 10, 2023
Unpredictable Work Pattern

Among the particularly interesting regulations of the recent labor law (law 5053/2023) is the one that introduces the schedule for unpredictable work patterns. An arrangement that provides special opportunities but also rises, at the same time, significant questions. On them, the present article!

Contracts made to Order

The aforementioned recent labor law introduces the hitherto unknown – as far as the national legal order is concerned – contracts “made to order” (art. 10 of law 5053/2023, 182A Presidential Decree 80/2022). The contracts, i.e., within which (and under specific conditions) a framework is set, where the employer has the opportunity to call the employee to provide their services – if the relevant need arises. In the specific contracts there is no (entirely or mostly) fixed working hours.

Conditions of Acceptance on the Part of the Employee

The “new” law sets two specific conditions for the implementation of this provision. These should be fulfilled cumulatively, in order for the employee to be obliged to accept the terms of the employment, in cases where there is (entirely or mostly) an unpredictable work pattern (art. 182A § 1 Presidential Decree 80/2022). Specifically:

(a) Work must be provided within pre-specified reporting days and times. The days and hours in question are part of the essential terms of the contract or employment relationship, which the employer is obliged to notify, in writing, to the employee. Either by delivery of a tangible form or in an electronic form (under the conditions of the law – art. 70 § 1, paragraph ic΄, subparagraph icb’).

(b) The employee must have been notified, a reasonable time in advance, by the employer of the assignment of the work in a specific way: via the delivery of relevant documents, via text message on a mobile phone (: sms), via e-mail or via another convenient way. The specific, reasonable, time cannot be less than 24 hours before the work is due to start. Unless there are cases that justify, objectively, a shorter notice. And in this case, the employer is obliged to notify the employee of the (objective) condition in question (art. 70 §1, para. i΄, subpara. ig΄).

In the event that the two, above, conditions are not met, cumulatively, the employee has the right to refuse to take up the work. In fact, in order to safeguard the employee, the legislator expressly states that in this case any adverse discrimination against them by the employer is prohibited (art. 182A § 2 Presidential Decree no. 80/2022).

Canceling an assignment

In the event that at any time, after the employee has been notified of the provision of work (and, in any case, before the provision of work has been taken up), the employer cancels the assignment, the employee is entitled to compensation. The amount of the compensation corresponds to the hourly wages of the working hours that were not assigned to them (art. 182A § 3 Presidential Decree 80/2022). The choice, therefore, of the national legislature was not to allow the employer to cancel the assignment of work, in principle, without compensation and the payment, in the end, of it, if they call off the assignment of work after a certain reasonable period.

Guaranteed Hours Agreement

In order to safeguard the employees, the obligation to agree on guaranteed hours is established. That is, if the employer and the employee enter into a contract with the immediately above content (:unpredictable schedule) they must, at the same time, agree on a minimum number of paid working hours. This number cannot be less than 1/4 of the agreed total number of hours. Otherwise, the contract is void (art. 182A §4 Presidential Decree no. 80/2022). The provision for guaranteed hours has the effect that the above contracts do not constitute (nor can they constitute) zero – hours contracts. In the event that the specific guarantee was not in place, such a characterization would be appropriate.

Employee Protection

The above arrangements aim to ensure the employee a minimum level of predictability regarding their working hours. To also provide them with protection against loss of income due to late cancellation of the agreed work (see in this regard, Memorandum to law 5053/2023 on art. 10).

Furthermore, in the event of the conclusion of the above-mentioned contracts, all protective provisions related to the employee’s contract or employment relationship shall apply to the employee. Any conversion (unilaterally made by the employer) of a full-time or part-time employment contract to a bespoke employment contract is expressly prohibited by law. Such a (unilateral) conversion is considered as a unilateral detrimental change in working conditions (art. 182A § 5 Presidential Decree no. 80/2022).

The Problems

The above regulation (: art. 10 law 5053/2023 – art. 182A Presidential Decree no. 80/2022), creates a multitude of concerns for those who are asked to apply it. The most important ones:

(a) As to the range of reference hours and days

Would it be possible for an employer to determine (on a reference day) as reference hours – the hours within which the employee will be called upon to provide work – any number of hours? E.g. from 08:00 in the morning to 20:00 at night? Could the said period even approach 24 hours? What, then, are the limits of abuse? (if, of course, there are any).

(b) As to the type of contracts in question

Do the above contracts constitute full-time or part-time contracts, in the event that the total number of working hours agreed in them amounts to 40h/week? What are those hours that will be taken into account for their qualification? The agreed or the guaranteed ones? Is there, subsequently, an obligation to prepare them in writing (:constituent form) and notify them within eight days to the Labor Inspectorate (:submission of form E9 to the ERGANI platform)?

(c) Regarding the remuneration of the agreed and guaranteed hours of employment

It becomes apparent, in the writer’s view (although contrary views have been expressed), that both agreed and guaranteed working hours (which are subset to the relevant agreement) are paid based on the agreed hourly wage. What happens, however, if the agreed total number of working hours falls short of a full-time employment contract? Let’s remember here the legislator’s explicit reference to the application to “custom” contracts of the provisions protecting the employee, linked to the contract or dependent employment relationship. One could thus support that the position that for hours of employment beyond those agreed upon, an increase of 12% is due on the hourly wage paid (art. 106 § 11 Presidential Decree no. 80/2022).

(d) As to exceeding working time limits

In the event that the agreed total number of working hours falls short of the full-time hours, are the full-time hours set as the maximum daily limit of the employer? Is, therefore, possible-in this case, to apply the provisions set for overwork and/or overtime (art. 106 §11 Presidential Decree no. 80/2022)?

(e) Regarding the possibility (or not) of interrupted hours

In the event that the agreed total number of working hours falls short of the full-time working hours, must the working hours be consecutive (art. 106 §11 Presidential Decree no. 80/2022)? And in the event that full time is agreed, can it be intermittent? And, in the affirmative, under what conditions (art. 165§3 Presidential Decree no. 80/2022)?

The arrangements for the unpredictable work time schedule are, of course, extremely interesting. And they will certainly prove to be valuable for those companies that have similar needs. The interest in making use of these arrangements (which has already become particularly lively) proves the truth of the matter. We await with great interest the implementing ministerial decision that will provide answers to the crucial, as stated above, questions and related concerns.-

Stavros Koumentakis
Managing Partner

P.S. A brief version of this article has been published in MAKEDONIA Newspaper (December 3rd, 2023).

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.

December 3, 2023
Coronavirus and Businesses: a first decalogue for their operation and employment relations
Pandemic COVID-19: One, First, Decalogue for a Business’s Operation and Its Employment Relations

I. PREAMBLE

1. The Pandemic

WHO has already declared infection COVID-19, caused by Coronavirus-2019 SARS-CoV-2, as a pandemic, from 11.3.2020. WHO provides constantly updated information and instructions on the subject.

The danger of our country’s health system collapsing is still visible. The prospect of finding hundreds of dead (corresponding to what we have unfortunately observed in Wuhan or continue to observe in the Italian north) has not yet been ruled out.

Let’s hear the wake-up calls. Those that are structured and composed. Τhat of MIT professor Konstantinos Daskalakis and (his related text, available in Greek), in my opinion, stands out.

2. The Legislative Acts As of 11.3.30 onwards

The Greek government has taken a series of measures to tackle this pandemic. As time progresses, the measures become more and more austere. This proved necessary as we did not act diligently. We did note even show responsibility.

Among the measures taken is the Legislative Decree of 11.3.2020 (Government Gazette A 55 / 11.3.2020) – Emergency measures to address the negative consequences of the occurrence of COVID-19 coronavirus and the need to limit its spread. Also the Legislative Decree of 14.3.2020 (Government Gazette A 64 / 14.3.2020) – Emergency measures to address the need to limit the spread of COVID-19 coronavirus.

3. SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus And Employment Relations

The Ministry of Labor (among others):

(a) Has provided workplace guidance and prevention measures regarding the new Coronavirus-2019 SARS-CoV-2

(b) By document No. 94243/09.03.2020, it refers to the obligations of undertakings and employees, in relevance with the COVID-19 infection caused by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus

(c) In its circular no. 12339/404 of 12.3.2020, it specifies the preventive measures to be taken by undertakings in accordance with Article 4 of its provisions of the 11.3.20 Legislative Decree.

4. Crisis Management (?)

Managing this issue requires a composed approach and structured decisions. The duration of the pandemic is by no means invisible.

On the contrary, the effects on the Greek and world economy are visible.

The effects on businesses, employees and employment relations are also visible. The whole population of the country is already affected. Without exception

Sober approaches are necessary. And even more necessary are sober decisions.

Knee-jerk reactions would, inevitably, have extremely adverse consequences.

And as far as businesses are concerned: Immediate and dramatic.

Information is required.

We will endeavor, in the light of the above, to make our own contribution to the (necessary) information. Concerning, in particular, employment relations in the light of COVID-19 infection caused by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus.

II. TEN, Critical, QUESTIONS

Question 1: What Is a “Special Purpose Leave” And What Are The Conditions Under Which It Is Granted?

The Legislative Decree of 11.3.2020 establishes the possibility for employees who are parents to use the “special purpose leave”. This leave can be obtained from 11.3.2020 to 10.4.2020 (with the, unfortunately not small, possibility to extend this exceptional measure).

There are two prerequisites for employees to be granted this leave:

(a) employees must be the parents of a child/of children attending compulsory education (or enrolled in nursery schools/kindergartens – but not in high school) or in special schools or special education units irrespective of the age limit of the children concerned; and

(b) employees must meet the statutory requirements for being entitled to at least six (6) days of annual regular leave when working six day weeks and five (5) days when working five day weeks (that is, working for approximately 3 months in the business).

The “burden” of this leave is shared (not equally) between three parties, that is the employer, the employee and the State.

Specifically: The leave is paid. The costs are covered by 2/3 by the employer and 1/3 by the regular state budget. In particular, the first two days are paid by the employer and the third by the ordinary State budget. The employee is obliged for every three (3) days of special purpose leave to use one (1) day of their normal leave (in an effort to prevent the abuse the measure).

If both parents are employed, they must notify their employers (or their joint employer) which one of them will make use of this special purpose leave. They must also notify if they intend to ‘share’ this leave between each other. In the event of divorce or separation of the parents, the special purpose leave is obtained by the parent who has custody of the child (unless the parents agree otherwise with a joint official declaration). If only one parent is working, he / she can only use the leave in exceptional cases (disabled, organization for welfare benefits and social solidarity, etc.).

It is noted, however, that according to the Legislative Decree of 14.3.2020:

concerning, in particular, the granting of the special purpose leave referred to above, to parents who work in companies or businesses in the energy and water sector and must operate to provide the country with uninterrupted power, gas, liquefied petroleum and water supplies to businesses / employers producing, transporting and supplying foods, fuels, medicines and paramedics to stores / businesses selling related items, a reasoned decision by the competent management body of the company is required.

The employer is obligated to report to “ERGANI” its employees who used this leave from 10.4.2020 to 15.4.2020.

Question 2: Can Employers Unilaterally Impose “Telework” on Employees of Their Business?

Yes.

(It should be noted that teleworking is a form of flexible work. This institution is extremely interesting. This is also evident from our own research for our article on teleworking article. And under these circumstances, it is not only interesting but also extremely useful…)

Employers, by virtue of the Decree of 11.3.2020, can unilaterally decide that some of their employees will telework.. Initially until 10.4.2020.

The imposition of this measure seems simple – at a first glance.

It is important to note, however, that the employer’s liability for an accident at work is not waived in the case of teleworking.

In this context, it is necessary that the employee provides a statement on the security of their work from (their) home. The relevant “Declaration” document should be signed by the employee and submitted to the employer.

But what happens when an employee applies for telework?

Both the application and its justification should be assessed by the employer. It will be accepted if the relevant conditions are met. Among them: (a) if teleworking is possible in this case and (b) if the request is assessed as ‘reasonable’.

Question 3: Can the Employer Compel the Employee to Receive Their Regular Leave Or Put Them (Mandatorily) On Unpaid Leave?

No.

This possibility is not provided for in Greek law.

Question 4: Can an Employee Decide on Their Own That They Will Not Go To Work Because They Are Afraid Of Getting The Virus?

No.

The employee cannot decide on their own that they will not fo to work in this case, as their absence will be considered unjustified. Specific conditions are evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Question 5: What Should an Employer Do If an Employee Is Presenting Symptoms of COVID-19?

Let us first note that the employer is obliged (Articles 662 CC and 42 Law 3850/2010) to ensure the health and safety of employees.

It is possible that an employee (or the persons associated with him / her) may develop symptoms of the above infection – which, according to the National Public Health Organization guidelines, make it imperative that they stay at home. If the employee discloses these data to their employer, the employer is obliged to accept the employee’s abstention from their work duties. It is imperative, in any case, not to endanger the health of employees and their relatives).

During the employee’s stay at home (at least for 14 days which is the time of incubation of the virus, as far as we, today, know) the employer has to pay their full salary. The obligation to pay a salary does not exist when the company has suspended (in whole or in part) its activity because of a public authority order to counter the transmission of COVID-19.

The employer is, of course, entitled to examine on a case-by-case basis each of the relevant requests made to them.

It should also be noted that if the employee is diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 (or quarantined following a medical order), the sick leave provisions will also apply.

Question 6: What Should an Employer Do for Pregnant Employees? For Employees Who Are In Vulnerable Groups?

The employer is obliged, in the same context under section 5, to require employees who are in vulnerable groups (as these groups are defined by the National Public Health Organization) to remain at home ,while (the employer is) paying their salaries.

Question 7: What Are Other, Basic or Not, Employer Obligations?

The employer is obliged to ensure the health and safety of employees. Measures to prevent the spread of the disease in the workplace are also in this context. The employer must also protect the health of employees by informing them and making available to them all the necessary materials and means for this purpose.
1. The Employer’s Basic Obligations, In A Nutshell, Are:
(a) To update the Occupational Risk Assessment taking into account the risk assessment and prevention and protection measures against coronavirus.

(b) Informing employees on the risk of coronavirus infection and on preventive and protective measures, in accordance with the National Public Health Organization guidelines.

(c) Employee consultation and encouragement for proposals.

(d) Taking environmental and personal hygiene measures, such as regular ventilation of workplaces, maintenance of ventilation – air – conditioning systems and cleaning of surfaces, appliances, etc., in accordance with the National Public Health Organization guidelines.

(e) Provision of appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) and supervision of their proper use.
1. Among the Employer’s Other Obligations, we glean:
(a) The provision to employees with the necessary hand washing materials, such as disposable soap and towels – where washbasins are available. Also alcoholic antiseptic in public areas – such as lounges, corridors and restrooms).

(b) Ensuring regular disinfection with antiseptic solution of work surfaces (eg cabinets or desks) or objects (eg knobs, telephones, keyboards, elevator surfaces, etc.) that come with frequent contact with employees or the public.

(c) Ensuring and maintaining adequate ventilation of workplaces with natural or artificial fresh air circulation

(d) The information on the latest data on preventive measures in collaboration with the Occupational Physician (where applicable). Also: taking into account the National Public Health Organization’s available, at any given time, information.

(e) Employers-companies which have been imposed or have been subject to the measure of temporary closure by order of a public authority are required to submit an official declaration to the ERGANI Information System of the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs stating that their business is subject to a temporary closure. This is in order to collect employee data for the operation of the Special Employee Support Mechanism introduced by the Legislative Decree of 14.3.2020. The relevant Ministerial Decision is expected to clarify the relevant procedure and operation of the mechanism.
1. In addition:
If an employee is required to travel abroad, the employer must consider the benefits and risks before making the decision. (Especially when the destination is an area where the SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus has manifested.

Finally, given the stress this situation may cause to an employee, the employer should take care of the mental health of each employee presenting the relevant symptoms (short leave, psychological support).

Question 8: Which Employer Obligations Are Suspended Regarding Employees’ Working Hours?

The Legislative Decree of 11.3.2020 suspended the obligation of employers to register with “ERGANI” any modification of the working hours or the organization of working time (thereby also varying the hours of attendance and departure per employee). Also “overwork” and legal overtime. Indicative: modification of start or end of hours, change of rest day, change of daily shift, personalized change of time of attendance etc.-Forms: E4 Supplementary Hours, E8 Announcement of Overwork or Legal Overtime, E12 e-build.

The recording of any change for the foregoing shall take place in a cumulative and inventory manner within the first ten days of the month following the month in which they occur.

Subsequently, by the Legislative Decree of 14.3.2020, it was decided that for the time being there still is an immediate risk of the occurrence and spread of COVID-19 coronavirus,

(a) employer-businesses which have exhausted the statutory overtime ceilings of their employees may employ them overtime without the approval of the Minister of Labor and Social Affairs. Such overtime may not exceed the maximum daily working hours provided for in the relevant provisions; and

(b) a derogation from the provisions of Decree 748/1966 (concerning the prohibition of operation on Sundays and public holidays) the operation of undertakings that produce, transport and supply food, fuel, medicines and paramedical materials to shops / businesses selling related items is allowed. In any case, the relevant protective provisions of labor law concerning the time limits of the employees must be respected.

Question 9: Are Employers’ Obligations to Pay Amounts Due To The State And To Insurance Organizations Suspended?

According to the Legislative Decree of 11.3.2020, companies affected by the occurrence and dissemination of Coronavirus-2019 SARS-CoV-2, may be granted an extension for the payment and a suspension of the collection of debts that have been certified by VAT declarations and/or debts certified by a Public Financial Service and/or insurance contributions (and related arrangements).

No interest or surcharge shall be payable on the amounts due during the extension of the deadline for payment and suspension of collection.

The necessary Ministerial Decisions clarifying the application of the specific provisions of the above Legislative Decree (definition of affected enterprises by sector and region, extension period, etc.) are expected.

Question 10: What Measures Can/Should Employers Take to Address the Financial Situation Caused by The New Data?

The pandemic COVID-19 is affecting both global and national economies. And of course the vast majority of Greek businesses. Businesses that were severely affected by the long economic crisis that our country was experiencing.

We have already mentioned the need for crisis management.

Crisis management cannot be implemented by law (much less: “by one law and one article” – as we have learned in the recent past). Nor, of course, in a unified way for all businesses.

Each of the businesses should closely monitor the development of the situation and adjust accordingly.

What matters, of course, is human life, health and safety. Immediately after: The survival of the business. In order to achieve the latter, measures will have to be taken – possibly a combination of them.

According to the needs.

Depending on the data.

Depending on the evolution of the phenomenon.

Our legislation already provides for more options and tools. Each business will utilize them, according to their needs.

The entrepreneur is called upon to make the right decisions in the light of the needs and financial circumstances of their business. The end goal will, in any case, be the survival of the business. And obviously ensuring the largest possible number of (if not all) jobs.

Let the redundancies be the last step the employer will take. Much more collective redundancies (under the provisions of the law).

Until then, they can take advantage of other, intermediate, measures – mentioned in our recent articles. Indicatively:

(a) the conversion from full-time to part-time employment contracts

(b) the agreement (or enforcement) of rotational work

(c) the agreement (or enforcement) agreement of suspension

III. In conclusion

The impact of the pandemic seems unpredictable.

The State must keep an eye on developments. Most importantly: it must continue to redefine the measures needed to protect public health and the economy. Also: it must be determined to ensure their implementation.

And so do the businesses.

Compliance with the National Public Health Organization Guidelines is a key priority.

Following: the selection of appropriate measures to ensure the safety and health of employees.

Finally, the adoption, where appropriate, the propper options offered in order to ensure the continuity and survival of the business.

With sobriety.

Stavros Koumentakis
Senior Partner

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.
March 15, 2020
Employee suspension or Contract termination?

Employee suspension (: The other measure that is milder than terminating an employment contract)

I. Preamble

“Profit is the brother of loss” mentions a well-known Turkish saying.

This saying is, unfortunately, proved right in the context of business. This is when the (healthy) attempt to make a profit turns out to be ineffective.

What is crucial is how the businessman evaluates each case. Is the situation reversible or not? Is the cessation of business temporary or permanent? Does it affect the whole business or only part of it?

In any case: the effort to reduce a business’s expenses turns out to be particularly significant. Wage cost reduction is the first thought.

Layoffs? Is that the only solution?

Are there milder measures? Rotational work or employee suspension?

We have already referred to rotational work.

In this article we will examine employee suspension.

II. Suspension-in general

1. In general

Termination of an employment contract is a permanent (but also socially burdensome) measure. But what is basically crucial is the support of the business. Rescuing it will mean the (socially desirable) survival of jobs. Employee suspension is, as mentioned, the other milder measure (along with rotational work). Jobs are saved this way, even temporarily. The expectation of a definitive recovery of the business is kept alive. The prospect of a permanent rescue of (endangered) jobs survives.

2. The legislative framework

Suspension is regulated by Article 10 of Law 3198/1995, as in force (after its last amendment in 2010). This provision states:

“Businesses and holdings, if their activity is restricted, may, instead of terminating the employment contract, suspend their employees in written, and the suspension shall not exceed a total of three (3) months per year, unless they have previously consulted the legal representatives of employees in accordance with the provisions of p.d. 240/2006 (Government Gazette 252 A) and Law 1767/1988 (Government Gazette 63 A).

If there are no employee representatives in the company, all employees are informed and consulted. information may be provided by a one-time notice at a prominent and accessible place in the business. The consultation shall take place at the place and time specified by the employer. During suspension, the employee receives half the average of the last two months’ full-time wage of full-time employment. After the three months have expired, at least three (3) months must pass before the same employee can be suspended again. The employer must inform the relevant services of the Labor Inspection Body, IKA and OAED in any manner regarding the relevant statement of suspension, affecting part or all of their staff. “

3. Purpose and basic principles

3.1. Suspension has a dual purpose:

(a) To contribute in the reorganization of the business with the restricted activity; and

(b) To support the employees to look for a job during their suspension.

3.2. The business that is called upon to deal with its restricted activity achieves, through suspension, a reduction in its redundant staff and employment costs.

Most important: No layoffs.

Suspension may extend to all of the employees (: complete suspension). But it may also extend to some of them (: partial suspension).

In no case, however, can suspension be applied as a measure against a specific employee. Suspension is a collective measure (like that of rotational work).

Thus, the company can suspend the employment relationship for its redundant staff.

During suspension, the obligation to pay for salaries is limited: The employer pays (to the suspended employees) half (1/2) of the average full-time salary of the last two months.

3.3. An employee who is suspended does not, of course, have to present themselves to the business and provide their work for the duration of the implementation of the measure.

During this time, the employee has the opportunity to work for another employer. Alternatively: to engage in any other activity. They shall not in any event be deprived of their right to receive ½ of their salary. These salaries are not offset by what the employee receives from their (potential) employment under another employer to supplement their income.

Additionally: the time period of suspension is considered as if the employee was actually working. This means that it is taken into account for the determination of the amount of compensation due in case of dismissal, for increasing the salary due to seniority, etc.

III. Conditions for enforcing suspension

1. It is clear from the wording of the law that the measure of suspension is, in some respects, identical to that of the unilaterally imposed rotational work. The same applies to what is accepted (and we have already analyzed) in the context of rotational work.

The conditions laid down by law for the suspension of employees to be valid are, in particular, the following:

(a) Restriction of the activity of the enterprise;

(b) Prior information and consultation with employee representatives;

(c) The written form,

(d) The maximum length of suspension and

(e) Notification to the competent departments of the Labor Inspection Body, EFKA. and OAED.

2. In more detail:

(a) Restricting the economic activity of the enterprise

The first essential prerequisite is that the business’s “activity is reduced”. This requirement is also met with the unilateral imposition of rotational work. There we said: “The law does not further specify what “the reduction of business” really means. In any case, there is no need to jeopardize the viability of the business. However, any (minor) reduction of the operation of the enterprise, of the establishment or of a sector of the business and/or if the business is operating at a loss are not sufficiently meeting the relevant legal requirement. Nor is it sufficient for an employer to have financial or liquidity issues that result in their difficulty to pay employees for a certain period. It is required that the “volume of activity” should be such that “there will be a surplus of staff as a result of the reduction in available work” (Circular 35958/666/2017).”

As suspension is imposed as an extreme measure, but also a measure milder than that of the termination of the employment contract, it is a reasonable premise that the reduction of the activity poses a real threat to jobs. In other words, it must be such a reduction that it could lead to dismissals for economic and technical reasons.

(b) Prior information and consultation with employee representatives

i. Prior to the employer’s decision on the suspension measure, the law requires prior information and consultation with employee representatives (in accordance with the provisions of Presidential Decree 240/2006 and Law 1767/1988). This is another (formal) requirement, which we met and analyzed in the case of a rotational system. Fortunately, even in the case of suspension, they do not need to end well.

ii. The above (under i) obligation applies to all undertakings to which the employer intends to impose the measure. And this, regardless of the number of employees. (Irrespective of whether they employ fewer employees than those provided for their implementation, as set forth in Articles 3 of Presidential Decree 240/2006 and 1 of 1767/1988).

iii. In addition, according to the abovementioned provision, “information may be provided by a one-time notice at a prominent and accessible place in the business. The consultation shall take place at the place and time specified by the employer.”

iv. In any case: The information should contain the reasons why the employer needs to enforce the suspension measure. Indicatively: evidence of a significant restriction on the activity, its likely duration, and the proposed extent of suspension (eg, application to certain parts of the business or to the whole business).

It is noted that in businesses with a small number of employees, this information may also be provided by an oral communication to employees.

v. The invitation of the employer to consult the employees’ representatives, or in the absence of them, all employees, should, in addition, include the place and time of the consultation. The interval between the communication and the consultation should be sufficient for the employees to prepare. The (sufficient) time is a real issue and is judged on a case by case basis. This is because it depends on several factors. Indicatively: number of employees, number and complexity of issues to be consulted on etc.

vi. Consultation under Article 4 of Law 3846/2010 is fairly broad. Of course, it is the exchange of views between the employer and employee representatives (or employees). It will focus on the measures and decisions that need to be taken to tackle the difficulties of the business with the significantly reduced activity. Specifically, the creation of a system of distributing the remaining work to all the staff of the enterprise (or to a specific part of it) in order to save jobs.

vii. What is encouraging, however, is that, as stated above, the positive outcome of the consultation is not a requirement for the implementation of the suspension measure. There is no need for the employer and employees to reach an agreement.

However, the imposition of the measure of suspension by the employer, without prior notice and consultation, is invalid.

(c) The written form

i. The written form (that is, the written statement of the employer’s decision to impose the measure of suspension) is required by the law itself. It is therefore an integral part of the validity of suspension, without which suspension is not possible. Consequence of this omission? The employee is entitled to full remuneration and not half of it, which they should be getting, if they had been lawfully suspended.

ii. The requirement for the written form is not replaced by any general disclosure that is posted on display in the workplace. According to case law, the employer must send an individual written statement to each employee they are about to suspend (SC 499/1990). It is advised to keep two copies of this statement, one of which will be delivered to the employee. In his statement, the employer is not required to state in detail the incidents which have led them to take the above measure. However, it must be concluded that the application of this measure is a consequence of the restriction of the economic activity of his business. As already mentioned (under III.2.a.), it is only under this condition that the suspension of employees is allowed.

iii. In the individual written statement, however, the employer must specify the commencement and duration of the measure. Notification of the employee’s forthcoming suspension must take place within a reasonable time prior to its commencement. Such an obligation is not required by law. It is, however, accepted by the courts as a manifestation of good faith (464/2013 First Instance Court of Xanthi). The purpose of timely notification is to allow the employee to seek other employment while suspended, so that they can supplement their income.

(d) The maximum duration of suspension

i. The law explicitly specifies the maximum length of time that the suspension measure can be implemented. In particular, its duration may not exceed three months in the same calendar year. The above quarter includes both business days, Sundays and holidays, with the term “year” being the period from 1 January to 31 December.

ii. This maximum duration of suspension may be imposed either at once or in fractions. It is therefore possible for employees to be suspended once or more times during the year. Under no circumstances, however, can multiple suspensions turn into rotational work. Suspension requires continuous and total abstinence from work. Otherwise, the dual purpose of the imposed measure (the relief of the business and the employee’s opportunity to seek work elsewhere) is circumvented.

iii. But there is one more time limit. It is about the time it takes to (re)suspend the employee. Therefore, if the abovementioned quarter is exhausted, three months of work are required in order for and employee to be suspended.

(e) Notification to the competent departments of the Labor Inspection Body, EFKA and OAED.

The last condition (of legality) of the suspension is that the employer notifies the relevant decision “by any means” to the relevant authorities of the Labor Inspection Body, EFKA (former IKA) and OAED.

IV. In conclusion

Alternation between profit and loss is not a theoretical possibility in a business. No matter how well organized it is.

In the event of damages, it is the rescue of the business that must be dealt with first.

It is up to the employer to choose the appropriate measures, where appropriate.

The utilization by the employer of milder measures (compared to the termination of employment contracts) is, of course, preferable.

Making use of the institution of suspension can be a step to the right direction…

Stavros Koumentakis
Senior Partner

P.S. A brief version of this article has been published in MAKEDONIA Newspaper (January 26th, 2020).

January 26, 2020
Changes regarding the termination of Employment Contracts

Changes regarding the termination of Employment Contracts that are initially set for an Indefinite Period: The New, Important, Data

1. Preamble

All of us, no matter our political beliefs or which party we support, seem to want the (long-awaited) development of our country. We will all, most likely, agree that this development requires, among others, private investments and the creation of new jobs (when we, permanently, succeed in breaking away from Carl Marx’s position that: “Capital is dead labor, that, vampire-like, only lives by sucking the blood of the living labor. The more it lives, the more labor it sucks”).

In our country, we have encountered all possible employment models: from medieval working conditions to the uncontrolled (most likely met as a pre-election campaign strategy and usually catastrophic for our country’s economy) benefits given to the private and public sector employees.

We will also (most likely all) agree that, we will have to by all means protect the balance between conflicting interests in employment relationships, in order to avoid leading the country to dead ends, as past practices have done; dead ends that contributed to the “crisis” that brought us in the current adverse financial situation.

There has been an intense discussion for the past month (which peaked in the recent vote, on Friday, 17^th of May, of article 48 Act 4611/2019, which replaced subparagraph 1 par.3 article 5 Act 3198/1955) about how making terminating employment contracts set for an indefinite period more complex affects employment relationships: the existence of a “valid reason” for the termination of the employment contract from the part of the employer was added to the requirements, with the employer being responsible for invoking and proving its validity.

But what has the status been so far and what will be happening from now on?

2. The important changes made

2.1 Terminating employment contracts initially set for an indefinite period in the previous legal scheme

According to the first subparagraph of par. 3 of article 5 of Act 3198/1955:

“3. Termination of the employment agreement is valid, as long as it is done in writing, the compensation due has been paid and the employment of the employee being laid off has been registered with IKA (insurance body of Greece) or the laid off employee has been insured”.

Therefore: The termination of the employment contract set for an indefinite time was valid without the employer invoking any reason. The only obligation of the latter was the payment of the compensation that was due to the employee. When the latter regarded the employer was misusing the right given to them by law to terminate the employment agreement, the employee could appeal before the courts and as for the cancellation of the termination and the continuation of the employment relationship. In this case, the employee had to prove the claims they made.

2.2 The New Legislation

With the provision of article 48 of Act 4611/2019, the first subparagraph of paragraph 3 of article 5 of Act 3198/1955 (‘A 98), is replaced, effective immediately, as follows:

“3. The termination of employment is valid, only if it is based on a valid reason, as such is defined in Article 24 of the revised European Social Charter, ratified by article one of law 4359/2016 (A’ 5), it is done in writing, the compensation due has been paid and the employment of the laid off employee has been registered with IKA or the laid off employee has been insured. In case the termination is challenged, the employer is responsible for invoking and proving that the requirements were met”.

Therefore: From this point forward, the law requires, in order the termination of an employment contract set for indefinite period to be valid, a “valid reason”, which the employer terminating the employment has to invoke and prove. For the definition of the term “valid reason” (in detail below, under 3.3) the provision is referring to the revised European Social Charter (below, under 3.3), which is already ratified by Greece, (with an increased formal power) and more specifically in article 24 of said Charter (below, under 3.2).

2.3 What changed comparing to the previously exiting legal scheme when it comes to terminating an employment contract initially set for an indefinite time?

According to the pre-existing legislation, the employer could terminate any employment contract set for an indefinite time, with the main requirement being the payment of the compensation of dismissal. When the employee considered there was a misuse of this power, they applied to the competent courts and the employee was responsible for proving the misuse of thee employers right.

The new regulation brings fundamental changes: the employer now must invoke and prove the requirements of a valid termination are satisfied, therefore the existence of a (now required) valid reason.

This position the Greek law has taken is compatible with the explanatory memorandum of the recent (article 48 of act 4611/2019) regulation concerning the necessity of the existence of a valid reason (see the report), as well as with the position the European Committee of Social Rights took on the provision of article 24 of rESC.

2.4 In Conclusion

In contrast with what was been happening so far, the employer can no longer rest assured just by paying the compensation of dismissal when terminating an employment contract initially set for an indefinite time. They shall keep in mind that a valid reason must be invoked. This reason should have something to do with the behavior or the skills of the employee, or the operational requirements of the establishment. Even more so: invoking and proving the existence of this valid reason, is theirs (the employer’s) responsibility.

Concluding: The requirement for the existence of a valid reason for the termination of the employment contract set for an indefinite time and also the “burden” of invocation and proof of such reason being on the employer, is certain to fill the court halls (a first “taste” of the stand the courts will take under 4), boosting our (lawyers’) bank accounts -no matter whose side you are defending.

Let us all just hope that it will have positive effects not only in ensuring the employees’ rights (as the law maker intends it to) but also to the development of the economy, the businesses and the country.

3. The Revised European Social Charter and the “Valid” Reason

3.1 The European Social Charter and the Revised European Social Charter

According to the explanatory memorandum for the Ratification of the revised European Social Charter:

“The European Social Charter (ESC), international convention for the protection of social rights, was adopted by the Council of Europe in 1961 and ratified by Greece with Act 1426/84 (Government Gazzette No 32A/21-2-84).”

The ESC is constantly developing by the precedents set by the European Committee of Social Rights, which oversees its application, and by incorporating Protocols in the ESC that widen the range of the rights protected and improve the mechanisms set to control. In 1998, the Additional Protocol was added to the ESC, which expanded the scope of the Charter with the recognition and protection of new rights. In 1995, a new Additional Protocol was added, providing with a system for Collective Complaints. Greece ratified the two Additional Protocols with the Act 2595/98 (Government Gazzette 63A/24-3-98). In 1991, the amending protocol was added, which improved the mechanisms set to ensure the application of ESC and was ratified with Act 2422/1996 (Government Gazzette 144A/4-7-96).

In 1996, the European Social Charter was revised, in order to be more up to date and to include more rights. The Revised European Social Charter was adopted on the 3rd of May, 1996, in Strasbourg, where it was open for signing, and was entered into force in the 1st of July, 1999, after the three necessary ratifications. It takes in consideration the developments in labor legislation and social policy, the ones that happened since the creation of the Charter in 1961, and intends to replace it.

The rights protected by the ESC divided to four areas: a) Employment, Training and Equal Opportunities, b) Health, Social Insurance and Social Protection, c) Labor Rights and d) Protection of Children, Family and Immigrants.

Greece has already signed the Revised European Social Charter in the 3rd of May 1996. The ratification of the Revised Charter improves, beyond any doubt, the level of protection provided in the area of social policy and proves the active interest of our country in the protection of human rights.

The Revised European Social Charter is already national law since its ratification with Act 4359/16. In addition, it is protected under the Greek Constitution (article 28 par. 1).

3.2 Article 24 of the Revised European Social Charter (RESC)

The European Social Charter (ESC) is, as already mentioned, an international convention for the protection of social rights. In 1996, the ESC was revised in order to be more up to date and to include more rights.

According to article 24 of RESC: “In order to reassure the effective application of the right of protection of the employees in cases of termination of the employment relationship, the parties must recognize that: a. the right of all employees to not have their employment relationship terminated without a valid reason relating to their ability or behavior, or based on the operational requirements of the establishment, of the facilities or the agency, b. the employees’ right, those ones whose employment relationship is terminated without a valid reason, to a sufficient compensation or other proper rectification. For this reason, the parties have to make sure that the employee, believing that their employment relationship is terminated without valid reason, has the right to appeal to an impartial body.”

3.3 What constitutes a “Valid reason” according to Article 24 of RESC

It is accepted that the valid reason required by article 24 of RESC (and now by paragraph 3 of article 5 of Act 3198/1955) is the one justifying the proper use (and not misuse) of the termination.

There is no obstacle in ratifying this article, as long as the causality of the termination of employment coincides with article 281 of the Greek Civil Code, which is setting the requirement of good faith intention and in accordance with the financial and social objective of the right of the employer to terminate the employment contract. The reasons for termination mentioned in article 24.a. are related to the reasons that lift the unfairness of the termination of the employment contract …”

The current position of the legal theory on the “valid reason” is basically the same as the abovementioned opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee Draft Law “Ratification of Revised European Social Charter”.

Valid reason is any reason relating to the employee them self, the way they work and their attitude as an employee, the technical and financial aspects of the establishment (not necessarily the establishment’s financial difficulties) or its operational requirements. Such a valid reason could not be tolerated, of course, outside this specific context: The dismissal of an employee for reasons irrelevant to the employment relationship and business could not be tolerated (i.e. vindictiveness, union activity, sexual orientation, political beliefs, racial discrimination etc.).

Therefore, we could conclude that valid reason is any reason that negatively affects the employment relationship and justifies its termination from the part of the employer.

4. How will the courts react?

(A First Taste of The Future… From The Past)

Obviously, we cannot possibly know how the courts will rule on, very recent, new regulation. However, there is a very interesting ruling coming from the past.

The ruling of the Court of First Instance of Piraeus 3220/2017 is definitely the first, and till this day only one, as far as the writer knows, published court decision that accepts that the status of unjustified termination (ruled according to subparagraph 1 par.3 article 5 Act 3198/1955) was not compatible with Article 24 of RESC. This ruling accepted that RESC had already (after its ratification with Act 4359/16 – and according to Article 28 of the Greek Constitution) increased formal power over common Greek laws.

“With the above provision (Article 24 of RESC) is introduced for the first time in the European legislation for Human Rights a new fundamental right, which is the protection of the employee from dismissal with the initiative of the employer. The main scope of the provision is that an arbitrary and unjustifiable dismissal offends the merit and the dignity of the employee. The protection Article 24 of RESC ensures that: a) every termination of an employment contract by the employer must be based on a valid reason, which should be relevant to the behavior or the skills or the operational requirements of the establishment, b) the employer must be properly compensated for being unjustifiably dismissed by the employee, or be provided with some other form of rectification and c) adequate lawful protection must be ensured.

After the ratification of Article 24 of RESC it is clear the status of the “unjustified” termination by the employer is not compatible with the termination due to a valid reason as required by the new article. Therefore, the principle of justified termination is directly adopted by the Greek legislation and from now on the Greek courts should investigate the existence or not of a valid reason and deem invalid every dismissal that is not based on such a reason. This can be done by either directly referring to Article 24, which sets precise requirements that are explicit and free of contingent, at least regarding this issue, of course along with the provisions of 174 and 180 of the Greek Civil Code – solution that is deemed more appropriate by this Court -, or by interpretating Article 281 of the Greek Civil Code, resulting to deeming all dismissals not taking place in accordance with Article 24 of RESC (par. 23) unfair.

Regarding the consequences of unjustified terminations – besides them being invalid according to article 174 and 180 of the Greek Civil Code, the employer has to provide adequate compensation or other form of rectification, as required by national law. It should be noted that the European Committee for Social Rights has consistently held rulings that the invalidity of the dismissal and the claim of salaries of late payment and the reinstatement of the invalidly dismissed, are considered as adequate rectification, so there is no need for financially compensating the illegally dismissed. [Gavalas, What is changing to labour law after the ratification of the revised European Social Charter, E.L.L.(ΕργΔ) 2016, 130 and on].

In view of all of the above, it is clear that the rulings the court made until now resulting that a dismissal is valid even if it is not based on a valid reason (due to its “acausal” nature) and that in order for a dismissal to be considered unfair it is not enough for the reason the employer based the dismissal on to be untrue or for the dismissal to lack an obvious cause, but the for the dismissal to be invalid it should be considered to oppose to article 281 of the Greek Civil Code, should be considered to contradicts to the provision of Article 24 of the RESC, which forbids the arbitrary and unjustifiable dismissal of the employee”.

In other words: The court rulings addressing cases about actions for the cancelation of terminations of employment contracts set for an indefinite time will focus on investigating the existence of a “valid reason”. When the employer succeeds in proving the existence of a “valid reason” (relevant to the behavior or the skills or the operational requirements of the establishment) the relevant action will be dismissed. But when the judge is not convinced by the argument of the employer, the action of the employee is upheld and the employer is obliged to reinstate and pay all the salaries of late payment.

What a great opportunity this is!

Stavros Koumentakis
Senior Partner

P.S. A brief version of this article has been published in MAKEDONIA Newspaper (May 25th, 2019).

May 25, 2019
Entrepreneurship Program Of Mandoulides Schools

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text] For a second consecutive year, “Koumentakis & Associates Law Firm” cooperates with Mandoulides Schools within the framework of the latter’s Entrepreneurship Program. The program is implemented with the aim of enhancing experiencing vocational guidance for students over 16 years of age.

Within the framework of the Entrepreneurship Program of Mandoulides Schools, “Koumentakis & Associates Law Firm” hosted for 4 weeks the student Mr. Konstantinos Zissis, who attended the main activities of the firm and was informed about issues related to the scientific subject.

The Entrepreneurship Program In Koumentakis & Associates

In our firm, we are delighted to participate in the innovative Entrepreneurship Program of Mandoulides Schools. We are proud to actively participate in the effort of talented and promising young people to meet with attorneys and legal advisors into active action. We believe that by participating in experiencing education and by supporting such initiatives, we contribute to the decision-making process for proper studies and immediate professional reintegration.

Koumentakis & Associates Law Firm encourages the experiencing education and development of pupils and students through work. Within the firm’s environment, trainees feel new experiences, explore their professional interests and develop new skills. At the same time, they have the opportunity to get acquainted with tools and methods that help them acquire assets of great value.

The Entrepreneurship Program Of Mandoulides Schools

Mandoulides Schools give special attention to experiencing education while remaining faithful in the provision of high educational services. The pioneering Entrepreneurship Programs have been created to connect their students with innovative organizations and companies in the region and learn through them.

Partners of KOUMENTAKIS & ASSOCIATES Law Firm and Victoria Pervizou-Head of Entrepreneurship Program of Mandoulides Schools attend the presentation of Constantinos Zisis.

The Entrepreneurship Program And Experiencing Vocational Guidance

The Entrepreneurship Program of Mandoulides Schools is part of the experiencing school vocational guidance, which is cultivated in the Schools through a series of actions (Three-day School Vocational Guidance, educational visits and projects under the STEAMulator program, 100 Mentors) aiming at better information, but also the acquisition of experiencing knowledge.

The duration of the programs is four weeks divided into two phases. In the first phase, students are introduced to the basic principles of operation of a company. In the second phase of the Programs they acquire experience in its premises, with daily presence, participation in meetings, dialogue with executives and familiarity with the subject.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_text_separator title=”Gallery” border_width=”3″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_images_carousel images=”35587,35583,35580,35577″ img_size=”” slides_per_view=”3″ autoplay=”yes” hide_pagination_control=”yes”][/vc_column][/vc_row]

July 10, 2018

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