In connection with the ZID of the Labor Code provided to us, with a focus on changes to the regulatory framework of labor relations by regulating the internship contract, after consultation with the members of KRIB - branch organization and the Human Resources Committee, we present the following position, expressing in advance, that the principled positions defended by us regarding:
· The possibility that the parties to the internship contract do not have a time limit for concluding the contract /i.e. can be concluded for a period of less than 6 months/;
· The possibility that the parties to the internship contract have the freedom to agree on the gratuitous nature of the contract for a certain period;
· the scope of internship contracts should also include contracts with students during their studies
are not taken into account in the bill thus presented to us.
1. §4 in the text of Art. 232, items 3 and 4 provides for an increase in the amount of the compensation that the parties to the training contract owe each other in the event that, due to disrespectful reasons, they do not fulfill their obligations to conclude an employment contract after the successful completion of training - up to six times the amount of the gross salary for the relevant position. We believe that making such a commitment would result in a practical disincentive for both employers and trainees to enter into on-the-job training contracts. The dynamics of the economic processes in the country does not make it possible to predict with certainty whether the prerequisites that led to the conclusion of a training contract will still be available even after the training period has expired and the same has been successfully completed. It should be borne in mind that the latter argument applies with equal force to both employers and employees. In this situation, the increased amount of benefits under the contract for on-the-job training would prove to be a factor that would deter any of the parties to this contract from entering into it. In view of this, we propose that the provided benefits be reduced to the maximum extent possible.
2. In §6 of the text of Art. 233 "b", para. 1 and para. 2 are the arrangements for the internship contract. According to the cited texts, the employer may enter into an internship contract with persons who have completed secondary or higher education, for positions that correspond to the acquired qualification of the person. The requirements set in this way find their practical reflection in the complete elimination of the possibility of concluding an internship contract with students who have not yet completed their studies. We believe that this kind of restriction is contrary to the declared goal of the bill - integrating young people into the labor market and supporting their transition from education and training to sustainable and quality employment. It should be noted that the qualification obtained from completed secondary education very often differs from the qualification acquired by individuals after completing their higher education. In view of the restrictive nature of the mentioned legal texts and the negative practical effect that would be achieved with their introduction into the current legislation, we suggest that the circle of persons with whom the employer can conclude an internship contract should also include persons who are in the process of of training to acquire secondary or higher education. KRIB expresses the opinion that the exclusion from the scope of student internship contracts is unfounded. International experience shows that it is the students (regular, part-time and distance learning) who most often benefit the most and actively participate in internship programs to acquire practical skills. Therefore, KRIB proposes that students be included in the circle of persons with whom an internship contract can be concluded.
3. In §6 in the text of Art. 233 "b", para. 3, there are requirements for the duration of the internship contract - from 6 to 12 months, as well as for the remuneration, which cannot be less than the minimum wage established for the country (argument from Art. 66 , paragraph 1, item 7 CT). We believe that the requirements introduced in this way essentially represent restrictive conditions that would prevent a significant percentage of potential employers from entering into internship contracts. We propose to legally fix the possibility that the parties to the internship contract can agree that it be unpaid, as well as have right to determine by mutual agreement the duration of the contract in each individual case. With the proposed paragraph 3, legislative restrictions are introduced in the direction of introducing a minimum term of 6 months for an internship contract. Such a restriction would have a negative effect and instead of stimulating employers to enter into such contracts and develop internship programs, it would rather become an obstacle and limit the hiring of interns. In addition, the hiring of interns in most cases is related to additional efforts of specialists already established at the employer, who spend additional time and effort to be able to introduce and train the interns in the exercise of individual activities in the enterprise. Trainees are not always suitable for the respective functions and ready for the relevant training. In such cases, the employer should be free to terminate the traineeship contract. In this case, the legislative approach should be flexible and stimulate, and not discourage employers from hiring interns through restrictions.
KRIB expresses the view, based on the practice in other European countries and in the USA, that the parties to the internship contract should have the freedom to agree that it will be unpaid for a certain period. The reasons for this are as follows: Employers would be significantly more interested in taking young and talented people into apprenticeship programs and training them, as long as this does not involve increasing costs for their companies. Therefore, the legislator should allow and regulate free internships. The non-payment of remuneration for the period of the internship is justified insofar as the usual activities that the interns perform do not generate added value for the company. Conversely, in cases where the intern works effectively and comparing the work done by him and the results achieved, there is no difference between the intern and the rest of the company's employees, i.e. where the results of the trainee's work are comparable to those of other employees and can be used to profit from the employer's main economic activity, trainees should receive remuneration for the work performed.
In addition, we propose a change to Article 315, paragraph 2 of the Labor Code. The proposed change envisages, when determining the jobs for employment, to the exceptions made for seafarers working in the enterprise to include the persons working as security guards or head of security activities. Pursuant to paragraph 1 of Art. 315 of the Civil Code, an employer with more than 50 employees is obliged to annually determine jobs suitable for employment from 4 to 10 percent of the total number of employees depending on the economic activity (for " security and investigation activities" this percentage is 4%, according to the Employment Ordinance No. RD-07-01 of 2.02.2012/2/31). In paragraph XNUMX of Article XNUMX of the CT, an exception is made only for seafarers.
Our specific proposal is the following:
1. In art. 315, para. 2, after the word "enterprise" add the expression "and the persons working as security guards or managers of security activities."
Motives:
The law on private security activities in art. 27, paragraph 2, item 4 states that for the position of "head of security activity" and for the position of "security guard" an employment contract may be concluded only if the person "is mentally and physically healthy ".
Security guards must be mentally and physically fit. In addition, security companies have a large number of security personnel. A company with 3500 security guards must provide 160 jobs for employment, i.e. – to establish a separate employment company.
There is a contradiction between para. 1 of art. 315 of the Criminal Code and art. 27, para. 2, item 4 of the Law on Private Security Activities. In this regard, we consider the proposed proposal to be completely justified.
http://www.turbulence.tech