After January 1, the majority of managerial contracts (all those not related to board members) have become legally uncertain as the freedom to negotiate termination conditions is abolished.
writes Ivica Grčar
[email protected]
One of our readers again points out the ignorance of those who write and accept new laws, as well as the blindness of all who participate in discussions about such laws. How is it possible, the reader asks, that in the extensive discussion between employers and unions, the legal uncertainty of managerial contracts due to the ambiguity of Article 2 of the new Labor Law was not even mentioned? The questionable provision of Article 2 of the new Labor Law states that only managers who are members of the board ‘authorized to conduct the employer’s business’ are not subject to the provisions of the Labor Law regarding the termination of employment contracts. Following this provision, although it is not explicitly stated, it follows that all managerial contracts of other managers who are not members of company boards, such as finance, procurement, marketing, development directors, etc., must mandatorily apply the provisions of the new Labor Law regarding contract termination.
Legal Tangle Employers and managers are, after January 1, 2010, when the new Labor Law came into force, at the very least in an uncertain legal situation.
From the ambiguous provision of Article 2 of the new Labor Law, it is unclear what happens to previously concluded managerial contracts with board members if those contracts specify that the provisions of the Labor Law apply to termination. Or are the conditions for termination simply not specified in the contract?
Abuses in the Land Registry (2)
Unreliable Ownership Books
Responding to the text about the abuse of ownership books published in this column under the title ‘I urge the state attorney to verify the reader’s claims’, a reader writes about the abuse of the same company names registered in different cities. For example, a public notary from Pula suggested to an indecisive party a company name that is ‘coincidentally’ identical to the names of companies from Rijeka, Zagreb, and Banjole. Then, the company of the same name is mentioned in a typographical ‘P’ case as a party in litigation even though that company was not actually a party in that fictitious typographical ‘P’ case. By reviewing the court register of those companies with the same name, comparing the dates of changes in activities and other changes, it is possible that at least one company is a front for money circulation or that they have a shared accounting system that synchronizes transactions of the same money and real estate. The competent state attorney continues to ignore the call to verify the claims of that reader.
The new Law, in fact, stipulates that the provisions of the Labor Law regarding contract termination can no longer be applied to contracts of managers who are members of company boards. It is even less clear what happens to previously concluded contracts of other managers who are not board members if those contracts specify termination conditions different from those prescribed by the new Labor Law, as the legal provisions on contract termination must mandatorily apply to those contracts after January 1, 2010. The transitional and final provisions do not foresee the alignment of managerial contracts with the new Labor Law, but simply state that this Law comes into force on January 1, 2010. Article 197 of the new Labor Law even implies that the provisions of this Law can be applied retroactively (to rights protection procedures initiated before the entry into force of this law).
Legislative Illiteracy The legislative confusion is also contributed to by the different definitions of managers in various articles of the same Labor Law. In the disputed Article 2, managers are defined as ‘members of the board authorized to conduct the employer’s business’, while in paragraph 3 of Article 3 of the same law, they are defined as ‘workers who are authorized as management personnel to conduct the employer’s business and who independently make decisions about the organization of work and business of the employer’. The only difference is that Article 2 specifies the conditions for termination of contracts with managers, while Article 3 specifies their working hours, right to breaks, and daily and weekly rest. One of the most important provisions in managerial contracts is the one that regulates the termination or cancellation of those contracts, i.e., the dismissal of the manager. The abolition of the freedom to negotiate termination conditions of managerial contracts actually calls into question the purpose of such contracts.
We invite entrepreneurs to present their problems. Following your writings, by pointing out absurdities in individual cases, we will highlight the shortcomings of the system as a whole and thus support readers of Lider as individuals in their unequal disputes with the cumbersome state administration. Contact:
e-mail: [email protected]
tel. 01/6333-524
address: Ivica Grčar, Lider,
Savska 41, 10144 Zagreb
