It is a common labour law problem in Hungary that in case the employee, due to medical reasons, becomes permanently unfit for the job he previously fulfilled, the employer does not amend or terminate the employment (the latter of which would entail an obligation to pay severance pay), but keeps the employee on “idle time” without giving him tasks and salary. In our article, we examine this issue in light of the recent decision of the Hungarian Supreme Court.
In Hungary, executives are a special group among the employees with a special labour-law regime. The reason for these different rules is that these employees play an important role in the life of a company and have a much greater responsibility. In this article we summarise the must-knows before hiring an executive.
In its recent judgment, the Supreme Court of Hungary examined the right of the employer to unilaterally determine the employee’s place of work, within the geographical area stipulated in the labour contract. In our article we examine what aspects shall the employer take into account and what are the employee’s rights in such cases, based on Hungarian case law.
In our two-part article we summarize what should the employer look out for, to execute a dismissal lawfully. In the first part we explained the basic principles of the justification of the dismissal. In the present article, we summarize what cases may serve as grounds for dismissal by the employer.
Termination of employment is a sensitive issue and can be the source of a labour law litigation, if done unlawfully. Unfortunately, there are many misunderstandings and myths in the common knowledge, such as the “three warnings”, which can mislead employers as well. In our two-part article we summarize what should the employer look out for, to execute the dismissal lawfully and thus avoid the unwanted legal consequences. In the first part we summarize the types of termination and the basic principles of the justification of dismissal by the employer. In the second article we summarize the cases which can serve as grounds for dismissal.
The Hungarian Labour Code specifies that the dismissal by the employer may be in relation to the behaviour of the employee, but it does not specify exactly what kind of behaviours can be considered. The question arises as to whether the employer can define the possible reasons for termination in its own regulations, if so, can the termination be based solely on the violation of the internal regulations? In our article, we analyse this question based on the recent decision of the Supreme Court.
The Hungarian Supreme Court (the Kúria) has recently addressed an important principle related to dismissals that has long been known in labour law jurisprudence. In this article we summarize the decision and its effects.
In its recent judgment of 2 March 2023, the CJEU ruled on the concepts of daily and weekly rest period and their relation. The judgment fundamentally contradicts the approach reinforced in the Hungarian Labour Code this year; therefore the legislator has to change the concept of rest periods to comply with the EU Working Time Directive. (In this article, we analyse the judgment 02/03/2023 - MÁV-START Case C-477/21)
The use of electronic documents is very popular in the field of labour law among both employers and employees. Although e-signatures may seem like a good and simple solution for many labour law documents, it is worth first examining the regulations applicable to the documents. In this article we will introduce the general regulations on the labour law documents and in our next article we will examine the judicial practice in relation to different kind of documents.
In its recent judgment of 2 March 2023, the CJEU ruled on the concepts of daily and weekly rest period and their relation. The judgment fundamentally contradicts the approach reinforced in the Hungarian Labour Code this year; therefore the legislator has to change the concept of rest periods to comply with the EU Working Time Directive.
Do employers have to pay for overtime if it was not expressly ordered by them? Can employers legally exclude in company documents the payment for overtime performed without their consent? In our article we examine these issues based on the case law of Hungarian labour courts
Trade secrets are protected on more levels in Hungary. While the Business Secret Act provides general protection, the Labour Code protects the business secrets of employers in the employment context. Yet this abundance can cause problems when it comes to the question which court is competent to protect employer’s rights in case of theft of trade secrets by an ex-employee. Can an employer file a damage claim against an ex-employee and a competing company as co-defendants in front of the commercial court? Or is it the labour court which is competent to hear the case? A fresh decision of the Hungarian Supreme Court, analysed in this short article, deals with these questions.
At the beginning of the year, several important provisions of the Labour Code were amended, and the changes affect all employers in Hungary. It is recommended for the employers to review whether the labour templates, policies and HR processes of company comply with the amended rules. In our article, we describe the main changes by providing a non-exhaustive summary.
In connection with the outsourcing of tasks to an external company, which is popular these days, everyone thinks of the savings, smaller company size, and less responsibility. However, a special labour law rule must also be taken into account in connection with outsourcing, because the legal consequences of an unlawfully executed process can be more costly than the savings expected from it. In order to avoid this scenario, in this article we examine the legal background of the mentioned special labour law rule, and in the second part of the article, its practical operation, based on Hungarian and EU judicial practice.
At the end of our series of articles on working time, we come to the issue that generates the most dispute between the employer and the employee about working time, the overtime. While in the case of a factory worker, it is most often evident to compensate for the extra work, in managerial or career-promising positions, it is often considered an inherent part of the employment and the employee is expected to handle the issue of working hours "flexibly". In our article, we will find out whether an employer can legally avoid paying wage supplement related to overtime in Hungary.
In the previous article of our series, we presented the regular work schedule by the employer, which most often means an 8-hour working time per day. However, in many cases the effective functioning of the employer cannot be achieved in this system, and it becomes necessary to schedule working time more freely. In this article we will discuss the irregular work schedule which serves the above purpose, and which is implemented by the working time banking and the payroll period under Hungarian labour law, which, despite their practical advantages, are not so well known.
In our previous article, we examined the basic concepts of working time and clarified when we are talking about it, to make the complex system of working time understandable. This time we will examine the amount of working time that can be allocated and rules governing working time scheduling. First, we will clarify the exact lengths of time we can allocate, and then we will go around the types of work schedules and the conditions related to them.
It is not the first time on the Smartlegal blog that we publish a series of articles about a complex labour law topic. After our series on dismissal, we are now examining the details of another cornerstone of labour law, the working time. In connection with this topic there are also many misconceptions in the public awareness, which may cause serious financial consequences on the side of the employer. Since working time is a variable and complex topic, we will analyse it in a series of articles to give you a comprehensive picture.
Refusal of employer 's instructions, unjustified absence, intentional damage: some cases where the justification for dismissing an employee is relatively easy to determine. What happens, however, if the employee does not commit a severe breach of duty similar to the one above, but his or her colleagues consider him incompatible, with whom it is impossible to cooperate, or even afraid of him or her. Can dismissal be justified by behaviour that is incompatible with others and creates disharmony in the working environment? In our article, we seek the answer to this question in the light of Hungarian judicial practice.
In the event of a longer leave of a worker, it is common for employers to hire a replacement worker with fixed term contract to make up for the missing workforce. When the replaced worker returns, a labour dispute may arise. In the legal case presented in our article, the Supreme Court examined how the employment relationship of the replacement employee terminates at the end of the replacement. From our article you can learn about the decision of the Supreme Court and what to look for as an employer to make the closing of the replacement smooth. (In our article, we examine the court decision published under No. BH 2021.2.51)
Termination of employment is a sensitive area and the process is not always smooth. It can happen in an escalated situation that both parties give notice of termination or a party later changes its previous declaration. The employer must also be prepared for such situations, as it is not uncommon for an employee to take legal action after a poorly coordinated dismissal, in which case the final farewell takes place in a courtroom.
It is often the case that the employer does not clearly regulate the employment relationship of the employees, which later leads to an employment lawsuit. This happened in the case before the Hungarian Supreme Court, where a legal dispute arose in connection with the employee's work schedule, the stake is the payment of several million forints of overtime work compensation to the employee. In our short article, we analyze the Supreme Court’s decision and draw conclusions on how the employer can avoid similar situations.
You are reading the final part of our series on “lawful dismissal”. This article examines with a case study approach, that in practice, what violations may justify immediate termination, i.e. what shall be meant under the Labour Code definition “grave violation of a substantive obligation”.
In the last two articles of our series on “lawful dismissal” we present the most severe sanction that can be applied to an employee, the immediate (formerly: extraordinary) termination. This measure is applied in serious incidents only, so many employers believe that they will not need to use the sanction. But, as we know, the devil does not sleep and it is in the details, so the employer needs to be prepared for this scenario as well to avoid further inconvenience.
In the previous articles on the lawful dismissal, we discussed that, ranging from the employee’s behaviour to the employer’s reorganization, there can be many legitimate reasons for dismissal by the employer. However, irrespective of the legitimate reason, the employment relationship cannot be terminated if the employee is protected against dismissal by law (i.e. the Labour Code). From our article, you can learn about these protections.
In the previous articles on the lawful dismissal, we explained dismissal for employee-related reasons. However, that is only half of the whole picture, because in many cases the employer dismisses employees for reasons of reorganization or redundancy. Justification must meet strict rules to be lawful in this case as well, the details of which we explore in this article based on case law of Hungarian labour courts.
In our previous article we have examined the cases in which an employer may terminate the employment due to an employee's inappropriate behaviour or attitude. But what if inadequate work or the lack of expected results is not because of the misbehaviour or bad attitude of the employee, but because of not having the knowledge or skills needed to perform the job properly. What can an employer do in this case? What can be the basis for a legal termination? From our article, you can get the answer to these questions.
Although, considering the current labour market in Hungary, employers are trying to keep the employees at the company, there may be situations where the employment relation cannot be maintained due to behaviour or attitude. In our previous article we explained that a dismissal by the employer is far from a simple move, as the legitimate justification must meet a number of criteria. In the present article, we examine the grounds for termination based on the behaviour of the employee.
From salary to vacation leave, an employment relationship can have many sensitive parts. However, labour disputes mostly arise around the termination of the employment by the employer and specifically in connection with the justification of dismissal. Since the fault of the justification will result in unlawful termination, leading to important pecuniary consequences, in our forthcoming article series, we summarise the rules governing employment terminations and the related case-law of the Hungarian courts. In the first part we present the general rules for justifying employee termination.
Whether weekly or once a year, to another continent or just across the city, work related travel concerns every single employment relationship. Despite its importance, Hungarian regulations are unclear about work related travel, which can easily be the source of an unpleasant labour dispute. To avoid this, from our article you can learn if your business is properly accounting for business travel.
Remuneration is one of the cornerstones of an employment relationship for both parties. It is not a new practice that employers seek other ways to increase the consideration of workers without modifying the base wage. The so-called “semi-official” solutions can be dangerous for the employer, because an employment ending badly can easily be the beginning of a labour dispute. In our article, we will show you smart salary solutions compliant with the Hungarian labour law.
When we talk about work, employment relationship comes to everyone’s mind first, although you can work for someone’s interest in other ways outside the “9-5”, monthly paid job system, for example by an engagement contract. Whether you are an employer or an employee, you need to know what the differences are between the two most common forms of working, especially because in some cases the employment authority or the court may re-classify the engagement as employment and may impose a significant fine on the principal.