Employers are often frustrated by employees' incapacity to work for health reasons, but they must act with care when addressing such situations. In an attempt to protect employee interests, legal regulations provide certain restrictions on what employers can do if an employee is unable to work for health reasons. A recent Supreme Court decision has further clarified some of these restrictions.
Organisations with legal entities and employees in several EU member states often try to centralise their human resources (HR) functions to some extent, which occasionally requires them to share employee and HR data within their group. Although existing Hungarian law provides a stable legal environment with clear rules for employers as data processors, there is a general feeling of uncertainty around this topic, which is partly due to the upcoming entry into force of the EU General Data Protection Regulation.
Although the Labour Code fails to define a 'conflict of interest', its general principles prohibit employees from engaging in conduct which could jeopardise their employer's rightful economic interests. Depending on the circumstances, a conflict may constitute a severe violation of the employee's employment terms and can be punished appropriately. In other cases, a conflict may arise that is not the employee's fault, which can therefore be appropriately rectified without penalties.
The existing Labour Code amended employers' consultation duties in the event of a collective redundancy. When the code entered into force, this change seemed technical and went somewhat unnoticed among other more significant changes. However, the change is important, as it simplifies employers' consultation duties in the absence of employee representative bodies. Simultaneously, the new rule's compliance with EU law has raised questions around how employers should act.
In Hungary, employers have significant freedom to change their organisational structure and reorganise their workforce, which includes dismissing employees. However, there are some limitations – both generally and in the context of anti-discrimination rules. Even if the courts respect employers' freedom in organising their workforce, employers must be careful not to exceed the limits of this freedom in order to prevent disputes.
A recent amendment to the Act on Labour Safety reduced the number of employees who can be employed at a workplace before an employer must elect a work safety representative from 50 to 20. Employers that are affected by the new regulation are advised to ensure that they comply with the requirements governing health and safety at work and elect a work safety representative.
Research shows that – in accordance with global trends – Hungarian employers tend to attach great importance to fostering diversity in the workplace. Although some employers have yet to implement particular measures in this regard, few refuse to address the issue. The employment of workers from all age groups is a key focus area, along with the employment of workers with a reduced capacity to work and low-skilled and disabled workers.
Although performance-based compensation has long been an integral part of Hungarian employment law, neither the Labour Code nor the relevant commentaries provide a clear-cut definition of a 'bonus'. As a result, the definition and key legal principles governing bonuses have been developed by court practice, which shifted after the economic crisis and the adoption of the new Labour Code in 2012.
While the conclusion of non-compete agreements or inclusion of non-compete clauses and other restrictive covenants in employment contracts is common practice in Hungary, a number of issues frequently arise – particularly in regards to statutory compensation, enforceability and unilateral termination. To avoid legal disputes, employers should carefully consider these issues before concluding non-compete agreements.
Under the Hungarian fringe benefit framework (the so-called 'cafeteria system'), employers offer employees a choice of different benefits of a set value, which are subsidised by the state and therefore beneficial to both parties. Several amendments to the system are planned, mainly due to a potential amendment to the personal income tax laws and a recent European Court of Justice judgment, which held that the system violated EU law.
Considering the importance of unilateral declarations and commitments in the employment relationship, Hungarian labour law sets out detailed rules regarding the representation of the employer when making such declarations. While the previous legislation raised certain practical issues in this regard, the new Labour Code provides greater freedom for employers in establishing the system for exercising their rights through representatives.
Hungarian labour law provides employers with the right to monitor employees' behaviour and actions, provided that such monitoring pertains exclusively to employees' work. The law affords employers a significant degree of flexibility in this regard, but careful consideration of the company's needs and thoughtful legal analysis are required before implementing surveillance systems.
Employing overqualified employees has long been a source of debate among human resources (HR) professionals. However, overqualification has recently become a more prominent issue due to the growing number of graduate workers and the pace of technological development. Several practical HR aspects must be addressed when employing overqualified workers, which often give rise to legal issues.
The use of temporary agency workers is particularly popular among employers whose workforce needs fluctuate or which require employees for short-term or seasonal jobs. As a general rule, employers may employ an unlimited number of agency workers for any job position, for a period of up to five years. However, the law imposes certain restrictions and prohibitions on the use of temporary agency workers.
The 2012 Labour Code introduced significant changes concerning the compensation to be paid by employers in the event of unlawful dismissal. As the previous regime put an unreasonably high burden on employers, the new Labour Code introduced a new penalty regime for unlawful dismissal. The Supreme Court has now issued an opinion addressing the most important questions relating to this new regime.
A new act recently entered into force which introduced new rules governing the opening times of retail shops. The new act brings significant changes, including a prohibition against retail shops opening on Sundays. The new rules are intended to preserve employees' rights and allow them more time to rest, but have nonetheless provoked heated debate.
A recent Supreme Court decision has confirmed the opinion that a share deal in regard to an entity is not a transfer of business as the employer does not change. A change of all or parts of an entity's shareholders does not qualify as a transfer of business.
The Act on Equal Treatment has been amended in light of the EU directives which implement the principle of equal treatment between persons, irrespective of racial or ethnic origin, and establish a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation.
A recent Supreme Court ruling indicates that a termination of employment by mutual agreement which coincides with a transfer of business is null and void unless concluded solely in the employee's interests (ie, to allow him or her to find another job).
The Supreme Court recently considered the issue of whether an employer that takes over a company is entitled to indemnification from the former employer in relation to employees' severance pay, holiday pay and compensation for leave not taken.