Andras Szalay
Comparative Study on Romanian and Hungarian Labour Law with SpecialRegard to Working Time
Comparative Study on Romanian and Hungarian Labour Law with SpecialRegard to Working Time
Tilburg
2010
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1934359
Table of content
1 Introduction
2 Brief theoretical explanation of Hungarian and Romanian legal systems in international context
3 Working time pertaining to the labour law of Hungary and Romania
3.1. Regular working time
3.1.1. Equally distributed working hours
3.1.2. Unequally distributed working hours
3.1.2.1. Work in shifts
3.1.2.2. Work in cycles (reference period of time)
3.2. Overtime working
3.2.1. “Normal” overtime working
3.2.2. Overtime working as a stand-by duty
3.3. Reduced full-time employment
3.4. Night work
4. Leisure time in accordance with Hungarian and Romanian labour law
4.1. Lunch break
4.2. Leisure period between two working days
4.3. Weekly rest
4.4. Statutory public holidays
4.5. Annual leave
4.5.1. Basic annual leave
4.5.2. Additional annual leave
2 Conclusions
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1934359
Comparative Study on Romanian and Hungarian Labour
Law with Special Regard to Working Time
1. Introduction
In this paperthesimilarities and thedifferences ofHungarian and Romanian labourlaware analysed, taking working time ascopeofthisstudy. Wearegoingto followthecomparative method, usingpositivefactfinding ratherthan normativeassessmentdue to restriction in size of the paper.
Were I describe the vital importance of the topic, I would say that these similarities and differences effect as many as ten thousands of migrant workers employed in both of these countries. In this studywefocus on health careworkers and therefore weemphasise working time regulations which are the most specific part of their employment.
Ithas to bementioned thereis asignificantHungarian minorityovertheborderconsequently the same language enables migrant workers for both of the directions. The frequency of (temporary)migration depends on currenteconomicsituation as wellas its direction. During the late ‘90’s until the early 2000’s it was rather common among Romanian employees to have a job in Hungary but nowadays trends are seemed to change and more and more Hungarian choose to work in Romania.
Concerningthehealth carefacilities forcounties laying onthetwo sidesofthe450kmlong border lineitwould befruitfulto cooperate even ifsocialsecuritysystems differhighlyfrom each other. TheEU-founded “Interreg”programaims to foster this typeofcross-borderco-operations especially between new member states. The author intends to participate in the preparation of a tender focusing to reduce the information gap among the involved employees. This paper may act as a stem of a future information package for workers concerned.
Inthis studyletmegiveyou abriefaccountofthelabourlawsystemofthetwo countries and acomparison howtheselaws areinternationallyembedded. SubsequentlyIintend to go on to describe our main topic, the working time regulations. Because of the dimensions of this paper wewillnotdealwith otherimportantissues:wages,workingconditions, job security justto mentionbutafew. Offcoursewedo believethesefactors areas importantas thetopic of the present paper but their possible contents surpass the frame of this study.
Themethod ofthis studyis to comparemostlythelegislativetexts ofthetwo countries. We do agree1 that is not a fully sufficient way but for the said reasons deeper background searching, group collaboration oreducationalvisitwould notbepossibleatthis stage. On the otherhand, theauthorintends to avoid thecommon trap to beoverinfluenced bythesystem in his own country2.
Ourexpectations about thecomparison arethat beyondtheequallyregulated basicstandards wewillfind moredifferences in details than common rules. Wewillalso verifywhetherthe general point of view the Eastern is the less protective towards its employees.
2. Brief theoretical explanation of Hungarian and Romanian legal systems in international context
As it is well known, in contrast to the civil law, labour law has developed purely within nationalframes. Differentlyfromthecommon Romano-canonistheritageofthecivillawthe labourlawhas marked particularlybyits nationalroots.3Thesituationis similarwith thetwo studied countries with theremark thatduringthelastcenturies,becauseofthe often arrested development, for Central-European countries the Western role models has signified an important source as well.
Traditionally, Romaniahas determined byFrench influencewhileHungary has been partof Roman-Germantraditions. BeforetheSecond World Warneitherofthesecountries disposed of codified labour code. During the communist regime we can hardly call the events “developmentofthelawsystem”butitis importantto mention thatthefirstwritten labour lawregulations was beingintroduced in this period.AfterthefalloftheBerlin Wallthelegal continuityhas been restored and theinvolved countries followed theirpre-warpractices. On theotherhandwecouldnot considertheselegalsystems as homogeneous anymorebecause of the various impacts of the privatization and the globalization. Therefore, mixed legal systems havebeen formed combiningAnglo-Saxon, Germanand French influences and some national characteristics. Moreover, both of the countries joined to the European Union, Hungary in 2004, while Romania in 2007 which has provided an additional obligation to comply with international standards.
As the involved workers are (temporary) migrants, their right to cross-border job is a key factor. Thefreemovementofpersons –inthiscontext:workers –forms partofasubstantial “Four Freedoms” of the European Union as the EC Treaty states4. This freedom enables citizens ofamemberstateto work in anothercountry underthesameconditions as nationals of that state. In spite of this provision some restrictions concerning new member states has been presented.Thereisaseven year5provisionaltermduring whichmemberstates arenot obliged to applythefreemovementofworkers provision regardingto thecitizens ofthenew member states. While Hungary became earlier a member state than Romania, its rights to retain thelimitations wereequalwith othermemberstates. Hungary has chosen agradually opening:from2007 to 2009, for219 kindsofjob weredeleted fromeverylimitation, while therestofthejobs belongedto work permityet6.From1st ofJanuary2009Hungary does not applyany limitation longer so cross-borderworking is morecurrent than ever.
Both of the countries were accepted early as a member state of the International Labour Organisation, Romania in 1919 and Hungary in 19227, though they temporarily opted out, from 1955 (Hungary) and 1956 (Romania) their membership is considered constantly. This paperwould notwanttodealwith theperformanceofthetwo countries in details within the ILObutfocusingon thetopic, wemadeaquickresearch on theacceptanceoftheworking timeconventions byourtargetcountries. Considering thelongmembership, itis surprising forthefirstinstancehow mere is thenumberoftheratified conventions, as itisshown in the chart below8:
ILO Labour Standards on Working Time | Hungarian ratifications | Romanian ratifications |
Hours of Work (Industry) Convention, 1919 (No.1) | + | |
Weekly Rest (Industry) Convention, 1921 (No. 14) | + | + |
Hours of Work (Commerce and Offices) Convention, 1930 (No. 30) | ||
Forty-Hour Week Convention, 1935 (No. 47) | ||
Weekly Rest (Offices and Commerce) Convention, 1957 (No. 106) | ||
Reduction of Hours of Work Recommendation, 1962 (No. 116) | + | |
Holidays with Pay Convention (Revised), 1970 (No. 132) | + | |
Night Work Convention, 1990 (No. 171) | ||
Part-time Work Convention, 1994 (No. 175) |
3. Working time pertaining to the labour law of Hungary and Romania
We can classify working time as regarded to regular working time or overtime. There is a worldwidephenomenon that employers intend to strivefor qualifyworkinghours areregular workingtimebecauseofthelimitations and theadditionalcharges ofovertime. In this chapter we will survey the possibilities of work allocation. We deal exclusively with full-time employment because thepart-time employment is not common at all among migrant workers.
3.1. Regular working time
3.1.1. Equally distributed working hours
As a general rule in both of the countries for full-time employment, the average regular workingdayconsists of8 workinghours and so aweek 40 workinghours9.In theeventof equally allocated working time employee will work the same quantity of time on each workday as a regular working time. We notice that in health care services that pure and simple distribution has almost vanished at all remainingonly for particular jobs.
3.1.2. Unequally distributed working hours
Therearetwo possibilities to distributeworkinghours unequallyto workingdays:when work is donein shifts orwhen work is determined in cycles. Hungarian lawknows both ofthese possibilitiesbutemployershalldecide between, consequently thereis no wayto applythese two institutions togetherorin amixed fashion. On thecontrary, wedid notfind regulations in Romanian labour law about work cycles10 .
Asignificantdifferencecan beexperienced in thewayhowtheemployer maydecideabout unequally distribution. In Hungary, employer is obliged – in absence of the alteration in a collective agreement -just to inform employees about shifts or cycles while subject to the Romanian lawan unequalworkingscheduleshalloperateonlyifitis expresslystated in the individual labour contract11 .
What is common in shift working and work cycles is the fact that notwithstanding the unequally distributed working hours, dailyand weekly limitations are represented.
3.1.2.1. Work in shifts
In accordance with Hungarian law, working hours may be arranged in shifts, Labour Code distinguish afternoon and nightshift, moreoverdouble-shift, continuous shiftand swingshift can beapplied also. Afternoon and nightshifts and the derivated shifts areimportantfromthe point of view of additional wage elements. What is essential, in the event of shift working the regular working time can not surpasses 12 hours on a daily and 48 hours on a weekly basis12 .
TheRomanian alternative is abitdifferent. Thevarious types ofshiftworkingaresimilarto the Hungarians but regulations abound concerning working hours. Pertaining to Romanian law, in case ofshiftworkingyoumaytemporarilyexceed 8hourdailyand 48 hourweekly working time buton averageofthreeweeks you shallcomplywith the8 hour/48 hourrule13 . Duringthethreeweeks period othertimelimitations arenotmentioned exceptthatthelength of the working day of 12 hours shall be followed bya period of rest of 24 hours14 .
3.1.2.2. Work in cycles (reference period of time)
In Hungary, employermaydeterminework hoursin cycles. In otherwords, itispossiblein such way by law to establish a certain reference period of time. Two-month (eight weeks) cycles maybeappliedforworkers in allprofession, whilecycles canbelongeron thebasis of collective agreement (four-month/eighteen-week) or six-month (twenty-six-week) if the collectiveagreementapplies to a whole sector. Forsomeexceptionalcases or situations are altering from the mainstream – e.g. employees working in stand-by duty, seasonal workers etc. -the cycle may be extended up to oneyear(fifty-two-week) 15 .
During a work cycle the daily – and so the weekly – working hours may be determined irregularly but must be between four and twelve hours a day.
As aconsequenceofwork cycles, weekly restdaysmaybeaggregated upto sixmonths. We discuss this possibilityintherelevantchapterofthis paper16 .Wenotethatduringareference period thewages areconstant, thecurrentmonthlywageis notdepend on theactualregular working time but the average of the reference period.
In Romania the reference periods are not applied.
Comparingthesystem ofthetwo countries concerningunequallyallocated workinghours we can conclude that Romanian law defends stronger employees against usually inconvenient unequallyscheduledwork with theneedofits contractualframeand thetightertimeperiods (3 weeks vs. even one year in Hungary) while Hungarian labour law is seem to be more consistent about strict daily and weekly working hours regulations with no exceptions.
3.2. Overtime working
When we talk about overtime working we are supposed to distinguish between “normal” extra timeworking and stand-bydutyas aconsequenceoftherelevantEUlegislation. Sincehealth care workers are generally affected by these developments, we deal with this issue with an emphasis.
Accordingto the Workingtimedirective17, anyperiod has to beconsidered as eitherworking timeorrestperiod, thetwo concepts beingmutuallyexclusive18.This regulation affected the stand-bydutyperiods as well. Thefactthatstand-bydutyisconsidered as working timewas enlightened by the decisions of the European Court of Justice in the SIMAP19 and in the Jager20 cases. Thesejudgments stated thatthetermofstand-bydutyis entirelyworkingtime, notwithstanding from the physical placement and the effective working activity. Consequently, nationallegislations aresupposed to look atstand-bydutyperiod as apartof regularworkinghours orpartofovertime. Thelimitations forboth oftheseperiods would be valid for the accumulated time in terms of the total working hours and the aggregated overtime working.
Perceiving that regulation is a double-edge sword, the Directive was modified in 200321 , distinguishing“active”and “inactive”stand-byperiods. Inactiveperiods arenotformpartof theworkingtime.Whatis more, theDirectivedoes notcontainregulations aboutthesalary paymentofstand-bydutyperiods. Forpracticalreasons, neithertheDirective, northeCourt stated the salary of the stand-by period might be equal with the salary as it was for regular working time. Otherwiseemployers would havebeen faced enormous additionalcosts and a need to increasesignificantlythenumberofworkers. In this casepractical reasons overwrote -again -the legal train of thoughts.
As aconsequenceofthe rapidlychanginglegislation, bythetimeHungarywas modified its national regulations the European frame has been changed again. Therefore, the applicable legislation follows the earlier directive and considers the entire time of stand-by duty as working time.
3.2.1. “Normal” overtime working
Subjectto Hungarian regulations, thedailyand theweeklyworkingtimeshallnotexceed 12 and 48 hours22 respectively,notwithstandingwhetherthetypeoforigin oftheworkingtime was regularorirregular.Itis obvious thatyou can compile a48 hours workingtimewith 48 regular working hours only if working in shifts or cycles, because normally, as it was aforementioned, the regular working time may not surpass 40 hours. Another option is to combine40 hoursofregularworkand 8hours ofovertimeorin theeventofshifts orcycles, more than 40 hours ofregular hours with a few hours of overtime.
The rules on – entirely or partially -stand-by duty workers may derogate – as we can see below.
Inaccordancewith Romanian LabourCode, themaximumlegallength oftheworking time shall not exceed 48 hours weekly, including overtime work23 –as we have seen above, with an exception of work shifts.
In Hungary, in addition to regular wages employees shall be entitled to a 50 % wage supplement for work performed in excess regular working hours in weekdays and 100 % bonus or50 %supplementplus appropriaterestperiod, underthedecision oftheemployer24 . The bonuses of stand-by duty periods derogate from general rules – we will discuss it as below mentioned.
In Romania, additional hours are compensated for with a correspondent rest period as a generalrule. Ifitis notpossibleto compensatein kind within 30 days, overworkingshallbe compensated with additionalbonus payment. This bonus shallbethe50%ofthebasicwage for the first two hours ofoverworking and 100 % for more hours25 .
3.2.2. Overtime working as a stand-by duty
According to the Hungarian law, the cumulated working hours (regular working time plus overtime)maysignificantlyexceed thedailylimitof8 hours and theweeklylimitof48 hours ifovertimeconsists ofstand-byduty only. Inthis case workingtimemaybeaslong as 24 hours on a daily basis and 60 hours on aweekly one. For health careworkers this regulation is abitdifferent, forthemweeklyworkingtimemaybe even 72 hours in which theemployeris entitled to distribute 60 hours while employee may undertake an additional 12 hours voluntarily26 .
Moreover, limits areregulated on yearly basis too, becausefrom the point of view of overtime working, the term of stand-by duty is equal with other overwork periods. That is why employer can not determine more than 416 hours (52 week x 8 hours) yearly as overtime, includingstand-by duty and employeecan notundertakemorethan 624hours (52 weekx12 hours) on a yearly basis subject to the same fashion. Obviously, the weekly partition of working hours may be unequal. We conclude the limits of working time in the event of stand-by duty on the chart below: As it is seems, on the one hand, employer temporarily could apply extra-long 60 hours or, with the prior written consent of theemployee,a 72 hours week, on the other hand, because of theyearly limits these extra hours would vanish rapidly.
Thanks to theflexiblerules ofthegivenDirective thestand-bydutyperiods arepaid bythe 70, 80 or90 %oftheappropriateworkingtime, dependingon should stand-bydutybetaken on working day, weekend or onpublic holiday.
Pertainingto theRomanian regulations, thereis ayearlylimitation on additionalworking as well, which is generally 120 hours. In special situations whit the consent of the unions the limit can be increase by more 240 hours27 . We mention that the aggregated 360 hours can not reach theHungarian timelimits and in Hungaryunions arenotbeableto influencedirectly the distribution of overtime.
3.3. Reduced full-time employment
When we are facing an employee with less than 8-hour working day in equally distributed workinghours, itis notnecessarilyapart-timeemployment. Both legalsystems providethe option of a reduced full-time employment which is mandatory in same cases, without any deduction from the wages.
Hungarian Labour Code contains special regulations about workers who are exposed by factors ofrisk atleastduringthehalftimeoftheirworkinghours. Theirdailyworkingtimeis 7 hours and 20 minutes, in which effectiveworkingtimeis 6 hours theadditional1 hour20 minutes is dedicatedto othernon-working,professionalactivity(forexampleexamination of scientific literature, trainings etc.). Among health care workers radiologists, laboratory workers and physiotherapists areespeciallyaffected bytheserules. Weremark thatwecan hardlycallsuccessfultheworkinghour’s reduction in practicein such way. Themeasurement oftheexpositiontimegives causeforunnecessarydebates in themajorityofthecases. The legislation has left several gaps28 what jurisdiction is not able to replace oreven amend.
Romanian regulations stipulatethattheduration ofworkingtimeis less than 8 hours adayin cases in which certain categories ofworkers requirespecialprotection. Theseprotected ones areyoungworkers who arenot18 years ofageyet, with 6 hours perdayand 30 hours per week working timeand employees workingdirectlyand permanentlyin particularlydifficult or hazardous conditions (e.g. biological, physical, chemical agents, greater physical efforts, high levels of stress etc.)29 .
Makingacomparison between thetwo legislations wecan observethatRomanian regulations are much more unambiguous. Apart from age limitations, risks must have direct and permanenteffectto beentitled to workinghourreduction. In Hungaryneitherdirectness, nor permanent nature is required but the grater possible level of reduction in time is rather theoreticalbecauseoftheuncertaintyofthelegislativetexts. On thecontrary,ifonceawarded thereduction is moreradicalin Romania, whilein Hungaryworkers areobliged to spend an additional period of time of 1 hour 20 minute at their workplace.
3.4. Night work
In both ofthestudied jurisdictions nightwork means awork performed 10 p.m. and 6a.m. next day.
Subject to the Hungarian law, night work hours are equal with regular work hours but employer shall pay in generality 15 % bonus to the employee performing work at night. Youngworkers and expectant women, from the detection of pregnancyuntil oneyearafter the childbirth are banned from night work at all30 .
According to theRomanian labourregulations, nightworking timeis onehourshorterthan regular working time with no deduction from the salary. Interestingly, this provision is not applied to employees whose working time is shorter than 8 hours a day. From the point of viewofsalaries, nightwork is rewarded bya25 %bonus oftheregularworkingtime. This bonus is doneto workers as wellwhoseworking timeis shorter. Youngworkers, expectant women afterthesixth month ofpregnancyandnursingmothers arebanned fromperforming night work31 .
4. Leisure time in accordance with Hungarian and Romanian labour law
Thedifferentcategories ofleisuretimearesimilarin thetwogiven countries; thereforein this chapterwewillexaminetherules and regulations aboutlunch break, leisureperiod between two working days, weeklyrest, statutory public holidays and theannual leave.
4.1. Lunch break
According to both countries legislations, if the length of the working day exceeds 6 hours employee shall have the right to lunch break. Moreover, derived from working hour regulations, in Hungary the right for the lunch break is re-established if the working hours surpass another 6 hours period32.
Theduration oflunch break is slightlydifferent:in Hungary atleast20 minutes, in Romania minimum 30 minutes. Either of the legal system considers lunch breaks as a part of the working hours.
4.2. Leisure period between two working days
Subjectto theHungarian LabourCode,employershallbeaffordedatleast11 hours ofrest timeaftertheconclusion ofdailywork and beforethebeginningofnextday’s work. With the consentofthecollectiveagreementthis period should bedecreasewith no morethan 3 hours for workers in stand-by duty, continuous shift or alternating shift. Another important rule, especiallyforhealth careworkers, is thatafterworkingin stand-bydutythework should not continue and it is mandatory to apply the 11 hours(or at least 8 hours) restperiod33.
In Romania, as ageneralrule, 12 consecutive hours of rest is mandatory between two working days which may bereduced to 8 hours, as well as in Hungary34.
4.3. Weekly rest
Pertainingto Hungarian lawemployees areentitled to two restdayperweek, oneofwhich must fall on a Sunday. There are several exemptions from this general rule. Employees workingin aworkingtimecyclemaybeprovided aminimumweeklyrestof48 consecutive hours that is to include a Sunday. Further derogation that employees working in a working timecyclewheretheirposition oremployerregularoperation necessitates Sundayworkingor employee works in stand-by duty, continuous shift, three or more shift or employee is a seasonal worker, may be provided the said 48 consecutive hours as well but their right to Sundayas arestdayis limited byoneSundayin amonth. In addition, in theeventofworking time cycle employer is entitled to aggregate the weekly rest periods giving 40 consecutive hours weeklyrestincludingacalendardayandoncein amonth aSunday, with acondition to provide 48 weekly rest on the average of the working time cycle. Moreover, the allocation should bemoreelevated ifemployeeworks in stand-byduty, continuous shift, threeormore shiftoremployeeis aseasonalworker, becausein this case, weeklyrestshould begiven bi-weeklyorwith theconsentofthecollectiveagreement, monthly. Inthelattercases onerest dayafter each six working days must beallocated 35.
Sinceregulations seemto be complicated, letmegiveyou a case36.Takeforexampleafour-week, 160-hour work cycle, with 8-hours of daily work. The employee will work the first week fromMondayto Saturday12hours perday,thesameon thesecond week(so far144 hours total), which leaves only16 hours ofwork fortheremainingtwo weeks. These16 hours are worked on Monday and Tuesday, and the aggregated rest days can be taken from Wednesday(12 days total). No supplementarypayis duesinceno work isperformed beyond the cycle.
In accordancewith Romanian LabourCode, regulations arefarless flexiblethan Hungarians. Thegeneralruleprovides Saturdayand Sundayas usualweeklyrestdays and justwithin a highly strict frame is possible to allocate the weekly rest otherwise. Under exceptional circumstances theweeklyrestshallbegranted on acumulativebasis. Thetimeframeofthe accumulation can not surpass 15 working days and consent of the trade union and the authorization of the territorial factory inspectorate are needed37.
Differences are striking between the two countries regulations. Over the alterations of the timeframeofaccumulation,which is amonth in Hungarian law and just15 days in Romania, and thelackofnecessityofconsentin Hungary, wecan observethatRomanian lawdefend Saturday and Sunday as usual weekly rest days while in Hungary the legal protection of Saturdayhas vanished at all a fewyears ago.
4.4. Statutory public holidays
Withoutcitingtheexactdates, wecansurvey thatthenumberofpaid publicholidaysconsist of 10 days in Hungaryand 8 days in Romania38. A great institution is found concerning public holidays in RomanianLabourCode:to whomthelegalreligion otherthan Christian should choose another two-two days instead of Christian religious holidays, this provision is not known in Hungary. Addingtheinformation thanin EuropeHungaryhasthesecond largest Jewish population after France some positive changewould be needed in this respect.
4.5. Annual leave
.
4.5.1. Basic annual leave
In Hungary, the basic annual leave is 20 days. This basic leave shall be increased with complementaryleaveaccording to theageoftheworker,thereforeLabourCodewarrantover 25 years averagely after each two or three years of age one additional leave day, hence the annual leave may be between 20 and 30 days39.
Comparingto Hungarianregulations, in Romania20 days ofannualleaveis also guaranteed byLabourCode, sinceafter1998 itwas increasedfrom18 days buttheadditionalleaveis the subject of bargaining40.
4.5.2. Additional paid annual leave
Somegroup ofworkers is entitled to additionalleaveoverthebasiconebecausethepersonal circumstances of theseemployees or the nature of their work meritgreaterlegal protection.
Subjectto theHungarianlaw, young workersup to 18 years and blind workers areentitled to five extra days of annual leave, single parents and one of the parents in pairs enjoy two additionaldayafteronechild, fourdays aftertwo children and seven days forthreeormore children. Moreover, employees permanently working underground or at least three hours a daytheirjob is subjecttoionizingradiation shall havefiveextradays41. Ourrestrictions about themeasurementofworkingtimearethesameas expressed concerningdailyworkinghours reduction42.
Pertaining to the Romanian labour law, regulations are the same to the preferred groups: young workers, blind workers, other disabled people and employees working under difficult, dangerous or harmful conditions are equally entitled to three days additional leave peryear.33
This paperdoes notdealwith unpaid leaveand thecases ofsick leaveorothersocialsecurity related issues.
5. Conclusions
Firstofall, letussummarizewhatwehavecovered. Wehavebrieflypresented theroots of thelegalsystems ofHungaryand Romania, then wehaveanalyzed therelevantinternational impacts for our topic from the International Labour Organisation and the European Union. Subsequently, we have compared in details the working and leisure time regulations of the two countries.
Since we can consider the two labour law in compliance with main international requirements, weconcludeitis seems to bepossibleto createan appropriatesystemwithout ratified each and every conventions. Concerning the relevant EU regulations, we have an impression thattherecentlyaudited newmemberstates sometimes –as forthestand-byduty for example –comply better with these rules than other state members.
As ageneralconclusion, wecan statethat this paperhas focused onlyon workingtimeissues because of time and size limit we did not deal with other important factors such as wages, workingconditions orlegalprotection. Therefore, only from this anglewecould notdecide which legal system constitutes more advantage to the given employees. On the other hand, it is striking, how much stronger is the trade unionism and how far more important is the collective agreement in Romania.
Justto mention butafewexamples, theyearlylimitofovertimecan beincrease120 hours with 240 hours onlyiftradeunion consentwhilein Hungarythereis apossibilityto allocate 416 hours on a yearly basis without any consent. Moreover, in Romania the cumulation of weeklyrestperiod maynotexceed 15days and theconsentofunion is needed, in contrastto Hungarianlawwhereacumulation is possiblefor15 dayswithoutconsentand onemonth of aggregation is permitted with acondition ofapprovaloftheunion. Finally, wemention the additionalannualleavewhich is subjectto thebargainingaccordingto Romanian labourlaw while in Hungary the legislation laid down the rules.
In contrast it is observable that in Hungarian law the protection of maternity is far more elevated. Sincethelawis culture, influenced bysocialmovements, itis importantto remark thatHungarian population is decreasingconsequentlytheseregulations arethesinequanon’s oftheameliorations. As an example, wecan mention theadditionalleaveafterchildrenwhich is guaranteed by law or the full prohibition of night work from the detection of pregnancy until one year of childbirth. It was not the subject of this paper but we remark that social security law and policyas well is far more protective in this field.
Quotationsand references
1 | Blanpain, R. (ed.), Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations in Industralized Market Economics p. 13-16. (IXth and revised edition, The Hague, 2007) |
2 | Blanpain, op.cit., p. 17 |
3 | Supiot, A., Le droit du travail p. 21-22. (Paris, 2008) |
4 | Article 39 of the amended EC Treaty |
5 | Two years plus a possible extention of three years and another possible extention of more two |
6 | 354/2006 (XII.23.) Korm. r. (Government Decree) |
7 | |
8 | |
9 | Romania: Article 38 paragraph 3 of the Constitution Hungary: Law No. 22/1992 on Labour Code Section 117/B (1) |
10 | After browsing relevant ILO sources, the national monograph of Romania and Romanian Labour Code |
11 | Hungary: Law No. 22/1992 on Labour Code Section 118 (1) and 118/A (4) Romania: Law No. 53/2003 on Labour Code Article 113 (2) |
12 | Law No. 22/1992 on Labour Code Section 119 (3) |
13 | Law No. 53/2003 on Labour Code Article 111 (2) |
14 | Law No. 53/2003 on Labour Code Article 112 (2) |
15 | Law No. 22/1992 on Labour Code Section 118/A (1)-(3) |
16 | See 4.3. |
17 | Directive 93/104/EC |
18 | Hendrickx, F.: EU Labour Law Student Handbook p. 212 (Tilburg, 2009) |
19 | C 303/98 |
20 | C 151/02 |
21 | amended by Directive 2000/34/EC |
22 | Law No. 22/1992 on Labour Code Section 119 (3) |
23 | Law No. 53/2003 on Labour Code Article 111 (1) |
24 | Law No. 22/1992 on Labour Code Section 147 (1) |
25 | National monograph of Romania paragraph 84. and Law No. 53/2003 on Labour Code Article 119 |
26 | Act No. 84/2003 |
27 | Blanpain, R. (ed.) International Encyclopedia for Labour Law and Industrial Relations, National monograph of Romania paragraph 84. (The Hague, 2007.) |
28 | Just to mention but a few of unanswered questions: What is the limit of effectiveness of the exposition for the reduction of working hours? Is a stochastic relation between risk and exposition enough to recuse working time? The halftime of what: the 8-hours normal working time or the 6-hours reduced one? What about overtime ans stand-by dutyi n case of reduced working time? Is it possible to aggregate the daily 1 hour 20 minutes to hold trainings or not? |
29 | Law No. 53/2003 on Labour Code Article 109 (2) and Blanpain op. cit. National monograph of Romania paragraph 82. |
30 | Law No. 22/1992 on Labour Code Section 121 |
31 | Blanpain op. cit. National monograph of Romania paragraph 83. |
32 | Hungary: Law No. 22/1992 on Labour Code Section 122 Romania: Law No. 53/2003 on Labour Code Article 130 |
33 | Law No. 22/1992 on Labour Code Section 123 |
34 | Law No. 53/2003 on Labour Code Article 131 |
35 | Law No. 22/1992 on Labour Code Section 124 |
36 | |
a_alpolg/a_munka/a_munveg20050805/a_piheno20060627.html |
37 | Law No. 53/2003 on Labour Code Article 132 |
38 | Hungary: Law No. 22/1992 on Labour Code Section 125 (3) |
Romania: Law No. 53/2003 on Labour Code Article 134 (1) | |
39 | Law No. 22/1992 on Labour Code Section 131 |
40 | Law No. 53/2003 on Labour Code Article 140 and Blanpain op.cit. National |
monograph of Romania paragraph 89-91. | |
41 | Law No. 22/1992 on Labour Code Section 132 |
42 | See paragraph 3.3 of the paper |
43 | Law No. 53/2003 on Labour Code Article 142 |
No comments:
Post a Comment