Naslov
Neki problemi primjene Direktive o kolektivnom otkazivanju ugovora o radu u hrvatskom zakonodavstvu i praksi
(Some problems concerning implementation of the collective redundancies directive in Croatian legislation and practice)

Autori
Potočnjak, Željko

Vrsta, podvrsta i kategorija rada
Radovi u zbornicima skupova, cjeloviti rad (in extenso), znanstveni

Izvornik
Aktualnosti hrvatskog zakonodavstva i pravne prakse / Milković, Darko - Zagreb : Organizator, 2016, 229-277

Skup
Aktualnosti hrvatskog zakonodavstva i pravne prakse, tradicionalno XXXI. savjetovanje

Mjesto i datum
Zagreb, Hrvatska, 24.10.2016. - 25.10.2016

Vrsta sudjelovanja
Predavanje

Vrsta recenzije
Podatak o recenziji nije dostupan

Ključne riječi
kolektivno otkazivanje ; kolektivni višak radnika ; radno pravo ; Hrvatska ; Direktiva o kolektivnom otkazivanju ; Europska unija ; primjena ; neprimjena ; zakonodavstvo ;
(collective redundancy ; collective dismissal ; large-scale dismissal ; EU directive ; Directive 98/59/EC ; transposition ; implementation ; nonimplementation ; labour law ; EU employment law ; European Union ; Court of Justice of the European Union ; case law)

Sažetak
Polazeći od tumačenja koja je Sud EU dao o pojedinim odredbama Direktive 98/59/EZ o kolektivnom otkazivanju, u radu se analiziraju zakoni kojim je ta Direktiva primijenjena u Republici Hrvatskoj i s njima povezana sudska praksa. Autor upozorava na dvojbe o prikladnosti i pravilnosti primjene te Direktive u RH. Tvrdi da je odabir razdoblja od 90 dana i najmanje 20 prestanaka kao kriterij za utvrđivanje “kolektivnog viška radnika” učinjen bez bilo kakve analize. Smatra da treba razmotriti bi li za poslodavce i radnike bilo povoljnije da je odabrano razdoblje od 30 dana, diferencirani broj prestanaka (10, 10 posto ili 30), ali uz primjenu kriterija veličine poslodavca. Struktura hrvatskog gospodarstva te novija praksa Suda EU, koja traži uračunavanje zaposlenih na određeno vrijeme, članova uprave u radnom odnosu, radnika koji su sami otkazali ugovor o radu zbog toga što im je poslodavac bitno promijenio uvjete rada te osoba na stručnom osposobljavanju bez zasnivanja radnog odnosa, upućuju na potrebu razmatranja te mogućnosti. Kritizira odabir “poslodavca”, a ne “pogona” kao razine na kojoj se utvrđuje “kolektivni višak radnika”. Time se poslodavcima nepotrebno nameću obveze i troškovi, a zakonodavac Unije nije pod “kolektivno otkazivanje” želio podvesti situacije u kojima prestaju radni odnosi radnika u prostorno i po djelatnosti potpuno nepovezanim dijelovima određenog poduzeća. Upozorava da Stečajni zakon nije usklađen s Direktivom jer isključuje provođenje postupka u svezi s “kolektivnim viškom radnika” u slučaju kada do masovnog prestanka radnih odnosa dolazi zbog sudske odluke o otvaranju stečajnog postupka. Ocjenjuje da se hrvatski zakonodavac umjesto da iskoristi mogućnost fleksibilnijeg uređenja opredijelio za neprimjenu Direktive u slučaju stečaja. Upozorava i na propuste u svezi s primjenom Direktive o radu na određeno vrijeme. Zakonsku definiciju “kolektivnog viška radnika” sadržanu u Zakonu o radu ocjenjuje preuskom u odnosu na zahtjeve koje postavlja Direktiva. Ukazuje na antinomiju u čl. 128. Zakona o radu koja stvara pravnu nesigurnost u svezi s trenutkom u kojem poslodavci mogu početi otkazivati ugovore o radu. Problem nalazi i u nejasnim pravnim posljedicama propusta poslodavca da o “kolektivnom višku radnika” obavijesti nadležnu javnu službu zapošljavanja. Predlaže da se uočeni nedostaci otklone zakonskim promjenama, a dok se to ne učini, smatra da su suci dužni, u granicama koje im za to određuju Ustav i zakoni, nacionalne propise tumačiti na način koji najviše pridonosi ostvarenju ciljeve analizirane Direktive.

Izvorni jezik
Hrvatski

Znanstvena područja
Pravo

Napomena
Starting from the viewpoints taken by the EU Court in relation to the interpretation of Directive 98/59/EC on collective redundancies, the paper analyses Croatian laws by means of which this Directive was implemented in the Republic of Croatia and the judicial practice based on them. Based on the conducted analysis, the author concludes that there are several issues in relation to the adequacy and regularity of this Directive’s implementation in Croatia. The first doubt refers to the issue of choosing a period of 90 days and at least 20 terminations as the criterion for determining “collective redundancies”. The author warns that such choice was made without any analysis and that it needs to be reconsidered whether it would be more favourable for employers and workers in Croatia if a period of 30 days would be chosen, but with the number of terminations depending on the size of the employer. Since small and medium-sized enterprises prevail in Croatian economy and the more recent practice of the EU Court requires including fixed-term employees into the calculation, as well as employed members of management, employees who cancelled their employment contracts personally due to considerable changes of working conditions by the employer and persons undergoing vocational training without employment contract, it is believed that there are serious reasons for considering that possibility. Another doubt refers to the choice of “employer” and not “establishment” as the level on which “collective redundancies” are determined. The author warns that such regulation imposes obligations and incurs costs for the employer and that the EU legislator did not mean to include into “collective redundancies” situations of mass termination of employment in parts of a certain company that are completely unrelated in terms of space and activity. He warns about the problems of such legislative regulation from the viewpoint of the functioning of the internal market and the freedom of entrepreneurship. The paper concludes that Croatian regulations are not harmonized with the provisions of the Directive requiring that the procedure related to “collective redundancies” should be implemented furthermore in the case when massive redundancies happen due to a judicial ruling on initiating bankruptcy or similar proceedings. The author believes that the Croatian legislator, instead of using the possibility of flexible regulation chose not to implement the Directive in case of bankruptcy. He points out that in case of bankruptcy the Directive on fixed-term work is unjustly not applied either. With regard to these issues the initiating of corresponding procedures by the European Commission can be expected and there is also the possibility of liability for damages by the state due to non-implementation of the Directive. The legal definition of “collective redundancy” contained in the Labour Act is estimated to be narrower than “collective redundancies” defined by the Directive and thus he proposes amendments to the Labour Act and the Employment Promotion Act. The antinomy of Article 128 of the Labour Act is pointed out as it creates legal uncertainty in relation to the moment when employers may start terminating employment contracts after implementing the prescribed procedure. He also takes issue with the unclear legal consequences of employer’s failure to notify the competent public employment agency about the “collective redundancy”. He suggests that the identified faults be eliminated through legislative amendments, and in the meantime he believes that it is judges’ obligation, within the limits of the Constitution and the laws, to interpret national regulations in a way that contributes the most to the realization of the objectives of the analysed Directive.

POVEZANOST RADA