In connection with the draft of the Law amending and supplementing the Labor Code submitted to the National Assembly, KRIB expresses strong dissatisfaction and serious concern about the way in which this basic normative document regulating the labor legislation in the country is being changed once again.
In recent years, the Confederation of Employers and Industrialists in Bulgaria has repeatedly and reasonedly insisted on the development of a new Labor Code; instead, from 2000 until now, this normative document has been changed annually, and in 2005 alone it was changed - six times. As a rule, any change is carried out under the presumption of harmonizing our labor legislation with that of the EU without considering the actual texts in the European directives, which leads to the inclusion of new non-working clauses – the result of a misunderstood protection of the workforce in market conditions.
In many cases, under the presumption of harmonizing our legislation with that of the EU, texts are changed that have nothing to do with European practice, as well as with individual directives. An example of similar behavior of the state administration is the proposal to drop texts from Art. 51b /paragraph 3 of the ZID of CT/, which are not only not related to the obligation of our country to bring the national legislation in line with the requirements of the mentioned EC directives, but are also not justified in any way and are not subject to the reasons provided to us for the draft law of the Ministry of Interior of the CT.
In this regard, we offer:
1. Paragraph 3 to be deleted.
Motive:
There are no reasons for the proposed changes to Article 51b and, more specifically, for the deletion of the text related to the requirement to conclude a national agreement between the nationally representative organizations of workers and employers on the general situation in relation to the scope and procedural framework of the sectoral and branch contracts, which is also the basis for concluding a branch and branch CTD. There is no consensus among the social partners on the proposal made by the petitioner to drop part of Article 51b. The text proposed for deletion is of extreme importance and one of the main requirements for concluding a branch and branch CTD, as this agreement defines the general conditions regarding the scope and procedural framework of the branch and branch contracts, and its presence calls into question the legality of the existing collective labor contracts, and hence the demands of individual social partners for the extension of collective labor contracts to entire industries or branches. If the aim of dropping this text from the Labor Code is to legitimize sectoral collective labor agreements and hence their extension to individual sectors, this goal will not be achieved, as a number of other issues related to the status of sectoral organizations remain unresolved, due to the absence of a Law on branch organizations and the lack of clear qualitative and quantitative criteria for their representativeness in the relevant sector. According to the Labor Code, collective labor agreements by branches and branches are concluded between the representative branch organizations, whose representativeness derives from their membership in the nationally representative organizations. I.e. these organizations conclude branch collective labor agreements, which in turn will extend to the entire branch or branch, which itself does not have a clear legal framework, since the Labor Code does not define the concepts of "branch" and "branch"; conclusions about the definitions of what is "branch" or "industry" are derived from the National Classifier for Economic Activities, which in turn is approved by an Order of the Chairman of the NSI, i.e. there is no legal definition of the concepts "branch" or "industry". Therefore, from everything that has been said up to this point, we believe that the deletion of texts from Article 51b is hasty and will not solve the problem of extending the CTD. In addition, we would like to point out that the trends within the European Community are towards the decentralization of collective bargaining, with collective agreements covering individual companies that actively participate in the process of defining a common framework of rules, rather than extending at the sectoral and national level. In this regard, in a report of the EC, which examines the development of industrial relations in the EU member states, it is recorded: "Internationalization, technological and organizational changes that occur in enterprises, the diverse activities that companies carry out and their policy of orienting their production processes to the needs and wishes of the customer, turn the standardized solutions that are negotiated for entire sectors of the economy into increasingly -few effective and feasible coordination mechanisms". In our opinion, the proposed amendment in Article 51b does not correspond to European practice and is in complete contradiction to market principles and logic.
2. In paragraph 4, item 2 to acquire the current version:
" 2. a new paragraph 5 is created:
(5) Copies of the entered collective labor agreements are provided ex officio in accordance with the procedure determined by the Minister of Labor and Social Policy to the National Institute for Conciliation and Arbitration, which creates and maintains an information system for collective labor agreements."
Motive:
The proposed change guarantees the companies that no sub-normative act will be created requiring them to provide copies of the CTD to the NIPA.
3. In paragraph 8, art. 128a, paragraph 1, the phrase "in a 14-day period" to become "in 30 days period", as well as to explicitly list the necessary documents.
Motive:
Undefinable concepts are used, for which a mandatory character has been created. In order for the employer to fulfill his duties, it is necessary to clearly and unambiguously define them in the law, especially after the increase of sanctions for employers in case of violation of the provisions of the labor legislation in cases where they are not subject to a heavier penalty and the violations are not are related to the rules for ensuring health and safety at work.
4. In paragraph 8, art. 128a, paragraph 2, the expression "objective and fair characteristic" should become "characteristic".
Motive:
Concepts for which there is no legal definition are used. It is necessary to give a definition for the concepts used as an "objective and fair" characteristic or to drop them as concepts, especially when their failure leads to administrative penalties for the employer.
5. In paragraph 11, paragraph 7 should be deleted.
Motive:
There is an order for granting and using leave, both paid and unpaid, and we do not consider it appropriate to pay benefits for the father's leave after the birth of the child.
6. In paragraph 13, art. 181, paragraph 1 to be deleted.
Motive:
This process is regulated in the current legislation. In accordance with the current regulations, the enterprises are now preparing the Rules for the internal labor rules. The proposed change and the introduction of obligation will create a prerequisite for racketeering on the part of the examining authority against the correct employers.
7. Paragraph 18 to be deleted.
Motive:
Upon termination of the employment contract, the current Labor Code regulates the notice period and it is uniform for all; with the proposed changes, inequality is created between individual workers and employees depending on the length of work experience.
8. In paragraph 24, item 2 to be deleted.
Motive:
The responsibility of the control body for damages caused by the imposition of administrative measures will only improve the quality of control and protect against subjectivity and corrupt practices.
9. In paragraph 26, Art. 408, para. 2 and paragraph 3 the phrase "objects and work sites, as well as in other places" should be deleted.
Motive:
We believe that the audit book should be in the enterprise and its divisions. Otherwise, the employer is faced with the question of who and where will store it in cases where hired labor is performed at a separate site or workplace and another place. The presence of an audit book at the individual site is not relevant for the control, since its absence cannot in any way harm the implementation of the necessary control, and subsequently the control body reflects its findings from the performed inspection in the relevant division or enterprise.
10. Paragraphs 28, 29 and 30 to be clarified.
Motive:
Increasing penalties and fines may be necessary, but the proposed increase is excessive. The proposed range of minimum and maximum sanctions and fines is also very large and is a prerequisite for violation of the legislation both by the control authorities and by individual offenders, especially smaller companies for whom the large amounts of fines are prohibitive and would lead to significant financial difficulties.
11. In paragraphs 32, paragraph 9 and paragraph 10 should be deleted.
Motive:
We do not consider it expedient that the collected funds from imposed sanctions and fines go to the budget of the controlling body, and even less to serve as a source of additional material stimulation. We believe that the funds from the sanctions and fines should go to the country's budget and be distributed from there. The introduction of a link between the revenues from sanctions and the direct material stimulation of the controlling body would lead to a distortion of the control mechanism and would only stimulate the imposition of groundless fines and sanctions in their most severe possible form. The introduced similar practice among tax inspectors is indicative. We express readiness for discussion and support for increasing the budget and numerical composition of the inspection, but express our categorical disagreement with such a binding between fines and incentives.
http://www.turbulence.tech