ZID of the Labor Code No. 554-01-24, submitted by Petar Kanev and a group of people's representatives

Ex. No. 540-00-540

MR HASSAN ADEMOV

CHAIRMAN OF

LABOR COMMISSION,

SOCIAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC POLICY

TO THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

MR PETER KANEV

CHAIRMAN OF

COMMISSION ON ECONOMIC POLICY AND TOURISM

TO THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

REGARDING: Bill to amend and supplement the Labor Code,

No. 554-01-24, submitted by Petar Kanev and a group of people's representatives

DEAR MR ADEMOV,

DEAR MR KANEV,

In connection with the draft law for amendments and additions to the Labor Code submitted for discussion in the National Assembly, the Confederation of Employers and Industrialists in Bulgaria, after consulting its members, united around the following opinion:

We consider the proposed extension of the deadline under Article 62, Paragraph 3 of the Labor Code to be a positive step. With the proposed change, the deadlines for submitting a notification for the conclusion, amendment and termination of employment contracts are harmonized, which is in the interest of both parties.

We support the proposed changes in Article 173 as correct and expedient. The preparation of a schedule for the use of paid annual leave by employees should be a RIGHT, not an obligation of the employer. The imperative nature of the norm in its current form leads to unnecessary administrative burdens and excludes the possibility of flexible solutions dictated by the business interest and the specific time production needs of the enterprise. It is not in the interest of the worker and the employee, who in order to achieve a change of the established schedule, it is necessary to present a convincing motivation, and on the other hand, there are no obligations for the employer to respect it. In addition, the restrictive nature of this norm is reinforced by the fact that failure to approve a schedule and its non-compliance are grounds for imposing administrative sanctions. Thus, an issue of a social and domestic nature, undoubtedly related to the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the Code, turns into a heavy administrative process, creating at times insurmountable unnecessary obstacles. In this sense, we propose to replace the proposed paragraphs of Article 173 with the following text:

"Art. 173(...) Until the end of the previous calendar year, the employer can approve a schedule for the employees' use of paid annual leave for the following calendar year. The schedule is drawn up in such a way as to enable all workers and employees to use their paid annual leave until the end of the calendar year for which it applies."

This necessitates an addition in Art. 172, and at the end after "lays" a comma is placed and the following is added: "when such is established".

We cannot accept the reasons for canceling the requirement that the employer develop and approve rules for ensuring health and safety working conditions in the enterprise, since this is regulated in the Law on health and safety working conditions, i.e. the proposed repeal of Art. 277 of the Labor Code. This law introduces general principles for the prevention of occupational risks, protection of safety and health, elimination of risks and causes of occupational injuries and occupational morbidity, information, consultations, training of personnel, etc. Due to the specifics of individual enterprises and divisions, the employer, subject to compliance with legal requirements should establish rules for ensuring healthy and safe working conditions at specific workplaces, for working with specific machines and equipment and with specific risks and maintain a knowledge management system, with the aim of preventing these risks.

The Confederation of Employers and Industrialists in Bulgaria has more than once raised the issue of restoring the employer's right to unilaterally terminate the employment contract with notice when the worker or employee has acquired the right to a pension for length of service and age. In this direction was also the submitted opinion of KRIB in the 42nd National Assembly on the occasion of the submitted ZID of CT No. 354-01-20 by a group of people's representatives. In this context, KRIB categorically supports the proposed change in art. 328, paragraph 1, item 10, considering that the correct wording of the text is "In the case of the acquired right to a pension for...". In our opinion, if voted on, the old text will cause disputes, including and legal, about what happens the next day after acquiring the right to a pension, when this right has already been acquired! The right is not acquired every day, it is already acquired.

Article 333, paragraph 1, to delete the words "and Article 330, paragraph 2, item 6". This proposal completely removes the protection of certain categories of persons in case of disciplinary dismissal. This is undoubtedly a relief for employers, but in our opinion, certain circumstances must be taken into account. First of all, the categories of workers and employees who benefit from this preliminary protection - mothers with children up to 3 years of age, sick with certain diseases, employed, i.e., groups of people whose unemployment may lead to the inability to to support themselves, to heal and to live at all.

Since in democratic legal systems the taking away of once-given rights is defined as undemocratic, we express concerns that on the one hand this will cause a negative reaction in society, and on the other - it will be in violation of commitments made by the state in international legal acts, according to which is a country.

Of course, the text is imprecise and creates many difficulties in this form. An obligation could be foreseen for the bodies of the GIT to give reasons for their refusals and for them to be subject to judicial review. Furthermore, in relation to the obligation to agree with TELC, there is currently no time limit for this and sometimes responses are delayed for months and years. Provision of a suitable short time limit for judgment would facilitate the procedure.

Regarding § 6 of the bill.

If the provisions of Art. 136a of the CT will not apply to small and micro-enterprises, what does this actually mean? Does it mean that small and micro businesses will not be able to extend the working hours of their employees or that they can do so without having to comply with the procedure of Art. 136a of the Criminal Code.

Similarly for the provision of Art. 138a of the CT on the introduction of part-time work. It will not be able to introduce part-time work at all or will be able to introduce part-time work for its employees for whatever period it decides and will not be bound by the provisions of Art. 138a of the CT?

In the same way and regarding the provision of Art. 181 of the Civil Code - why should the legal status of the obligations to have the Rules for the Internal Labor Order be different for a micro-enterprise compared to a large employer. Does this mean that the small and micro-employer does not have an internal work order and does not observe a certain labor discipline, which is also due to a large or medium-sized employer?

So proposed, the texts, instead of facilitating the introduction of part-time or extended working hours for micro-enterprises, may lead to the opposite effect through their ambiguous interpretation due to the above considerations. In order to create a real possibility for small and micro-enterprises to introduce part-time working hours, as well as to extend working hours under reduced conditions, a new text must be introduced, according to which the provisions of Art. 138a, para. 3, item 3 shall not apply to micro-enterprises and small enterprises in case of production necessity.

The proposal to repeal § 3h of the Transitional Provisions is reasonable and logical in relation to the proposed change in §2.

With respect,

Eugene Ivanov

Ex. director