Employee protection when choosing foreign law

Posted by: 11. 7. 2023
Update: 13/11/2024

On 26 April 4, the Constitutional Court issued file number IV. ÚS 2023/2648 resolution confirming the verdict of the Supreme Court regarding the protection of the employee, according to which a foreign worker in the Czech Republic is protected by the Czech Labor Code, even if he concluded a contract with the employer according to the law of a foreign country.

In a dispute between the American radio station Rádio Svobodná Evropa/Rádio Svoboda (RFE/RL), which for a long time concluded contracts with its employees precisely according to the law of the United States of America, the Supreme Court stated with a dismissed employee that although a choice of law is made, the employee must not be deprived of the protection provided to him by the Czechs the Labor Code.

What happened?

A former employee of the RFE/RL station claimed at the District Court for Prague 10 determining the invalidity of termination of employment, which first dismissed his claim, finding the termination valid due to the choice of applicable law. However, the Municipal Court in Prague overturned the decision in the appeal proceedings and returned the matter for further proceedings, stating that in accordance with Article 6, paragraph 1 Rome Conventions on the law applicable to contractual obligations despite a valid choice of law, the employee may not be deprived of the protection provided to him by the mandatory provisions of the law of the country of the place of work, which would have been applied in the absence of the choice of law. At the same time, according to the Municipal Court in Prague, it was appropriate to review the details of the termination and fulfillment of one of the exhaustively defined grounds for termination according to the Labor Code.

The District Court for Prague 10 then ruled that the termination of the employment relationship was invalid, as the termination was indefinite and sending one disagreeing e-mail to a supervisor through mass communication with other employees, even if it was contrary to the employer's instructions, cannot be considered a serious breach of employment obligations. The Municipal Court in Prague upheld the decision with a judgment stating that such termination of the employment relationship would constitute an unreasonably harsh interference with the employee's rights.

RFE/RL filed an appeal against the decision, the admissibility of which was seen as resolving the legal question of whether the term "imperative provision" according to the Rome Convention can be interpreted as a mandatory provision and also objected to a deviation from earlier decisions of the Supreme Court. However, the employment contracts in the cases discussed at the time were concluded on 31/1/2001 and on 14/7/1997 and were therefore assessed according to Act No. 97/1963 Coll., on international private and procedural law (now no longer effective). In contrast, the employment contract in the present case was concluded on 21 October 10 and is therefore covered by the Rome Convention, which entered into force for the Czech Republic on 2009 July 1.

Appeal

Because the Supreme Court came to a different legal conclusion than in its previous decisions, it referred the matter to the Grand Chamber of the Civil and Commercial College. He then rejected the appeal, emphasizing that the term "imperative provision" has a different meaning in the various articles of the Rome Convention, whereas in the given case in accordance with Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Rome Convention, the employee cannot be deprived of the protection provided to him by the mandatory provisions of the Czech Labor Code, because American law provides the employee with a lower standard of protection when the employment relationship is terminated by the employer, when it allows the employee to resign for any reason or even without stating the reason.

In the subsequent constitutional complaint, the RFE/RL station argued that it legitimately expected the interpretation of legal texts by the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court and an unconstitutional change in jurisprudence, since until now the notice given to its employees had been repeatedly found to be valid even without giving a reason. The constitutional complaint was rejected, while the Constitutional Court came to the conclusion that the deviation from earlier jurisprudence was made in accordance with the law and did not result in an exception to the rule of applying a new legal opinion to currently ongoing and future cases, regardless of the fact that there was an action corresponding to the factual nature of the legal norm, because it was not a completely fundamental change in the jurisprudence, which would be disproportionately "tough" in view of the existing legitimate expectations. At the same time, he pointed out that in Czech law, the weaker contracting party is the employee, who is entitled to increased legal protection. She was even mentioned in one of the findings of the Constitutional Court "constitutionalization of the protection of the weaker contracting party as a principle of constitutional significance, which public authorities are obliged to follow in application practice".[1] He added to Article 6, Paragraph 1 of the Rome Convention that the case would not be considered according to the mandatory provisions of the law of the country of the place of work, if the chosen applicable law guaranteed the employee a higher standard of protection, which is not the case. The Constitutional Court thus concluded that: "Reducing the achieved level of protection of fundamental rights and freedoms cannot be accepted even in a case with an international element."

záver

If we summarize the above, even if the parties have the option to choose a law other than Czech law in the employment contract, this is it choice limited by employee protection standard. If a higher standard of protection is guaranteed by the applicable law chosen by the employee, the matter will not be considered according to the mandatory provisions of the law of the country of the place of work. However, if the standard of employee protection provided by the chosen applicable law is lower, it is not possible to deny the employee the protection guaranteed to him by the legal regulation applicable in the absence of a choice of law.

Source: leagleone

You need legal advice regarding labor law? Do you have an employee who consistently violates regulations or work ethics? Have you been unfairly dismissed? We will advise you!