-Advertisment-spot_img
25 C
Ho Chi Minh City
Trang ChủSharing of expertiseLabourQuestion 122: Disciplining in the form of extending pay raise period is...

Question 122: Disciplining in the form of extending pay raise period is one of the disciplinary forms where Employee violate LD-related cases including the regulations on compliance with time, technology and production and business management in ILR. Accordingly, when being disciplined in the form of extending pay raise period, Employees’ pay raise period will be postponed compared with the period as agreed by the parties or the period under the enterprise policy. Regarding the date of disciplinary action in the form of extending pay raise period, the labour law has not yet provided specific guidance on the “date of disciplinary action” for disciplining in the form of extending Employees’ pay raise period, which leads to different interpretations for this phrase. Thus, how about understanding this phrase for proper application?

spot_img

In this regard, because the labour law has not yet provided specific guidance on the “date of disciplinary action” in the form of extending Employees’ pay raise period, there are currently three different views as follows:

  • View 1: considers the “date of disciplinary action” in the form of extending Employees’ pay raise period to be the date on which Employers issue a disciplinary decision. Accordingly, this view holds that if the pay raise takes place after six months from the date of the disciplinary decision in the form of extending pay raise period, Employees’ pay will still be raised at the date of pay raise by the Company. 
  • View 2: considers the “date of disciplinary action” in the form of extending pay raise period to be the date on which Employees should have been paid a pay raise as agreed upon by Employees and Employers under LCs or CLAs, but as a result of the disciplining of Employees, they will be subjected to a six-month extension of pay raise period from the date of considering pay raise.
  • View 3: considers the “date of disciplinary action” in the form of extending pay raise period to be the date of making the decision on LD, and the disciplining date is valid only for application of Article 127.1 of the Labor Code, which serve as a milestone to identify the date on which Employees are entitled to “being removed from discipline”, namely “being acquitted of previous criminal record” on an offense, concurrently providing a basis for evaluating Employees’ non-relapse. This view holds that “the date of disciplinary action” and the date on which the disciplinary action is taken in the form of extending pay raise period (i.e. the date of application) are different. Accordingly, the “date of disciplinary action ” is only to determine whether an Employee is subject to dismissal due to his/her relapse while the date of application in the form of extending pay raise period is still the date on which Employees should have been entitled to a pay raise as agreed upon by Employees and Employers, CLAs or under the enterprise policy. Since Employees are disciplined in the form of extending pay raise period, their pay raise is 6 months late from that date. Thus, compared with View 2, this view also indicates a similarity.

Thus, it seems that the interaction between pay rise and disciplinary measures in the form of extending pay raise period is unclear. In this regard, upon consultation with some specialists from the provincial/ municipal DOLISA, they are in favour of View 1 on the basis of protecting Employees’ interests, arguing that there is a need for a clear distinction between pay raise and disciplinary action in the form of extending pay raise period. Accordingly, the date when the disciplinary decision is enacted and effective (specialists believe that as a rule, the date when the disciplinary decision is normally issued is also the date when the decision takes effect) will be the date of counting disciplinary action time in the form of extending pay raise period. If Employers do not give any pay raise during 6 months of disciplinary action, Employees will still be entitled to being removed from discipline and considered for a pay raise if a pay raise period takes place after that disciplinary period. Experienced lawyers in the area of labour law lean toward View 3 as aforesaid because according to View 1, any disciplinary action in the form of extending pay raise period almost has no meaning. Indeed, for enterprises of which the general policy is to raise pay at the end of the year, this does not impact Employees who are disciplined at the beginning of the year in the form of extending pay raise period. As for View 2, the “date of disciplinary action” when Employees should have been paid a pay raise, will not be accepted because it will affect discipline removal and reduce the duration of suffering LD.

Based on the said issues raised above, there are many conflicting views and when there is any dispute between Employees and Employers, only the view of the dispute settlement agencies are applied. The application of which view related to what defines “the date of disciplinary action” is important in choosing the right solution and reducing the risks to enterprises. Therefore, with prudence, enterprises should send their official letters to the competent and relevant State authorities so that they can obtain formal answers to these issues before performing. 



spot_img
Bài viết trướcQuestion: Pursuant to Article 130 of the Labor Code: a. Employees who cause damage to devices, equipment or conduct other acts causing damage to Employer’s properties must pay compensations. If Employees cause slight damage due to their negligence with the value of less than 10 months of the area minimum wage announced by the Government and applicable at the workplace, Employees must compensate to the tune of an amount of 3 months’ salary at a maximum that is monthly deducted from their salary; and b. If Employees lose any tools, equipment, properties or other assets which are handed to them by their Employers, or use supplies more than the norms permitted, they must compensate part or the whole value of such things at the market price; if a liability agreement is available, they must pay compensation as prescribed in this agreement; in case of natural calamities, fires, enemy sabotage, epidemics, disasters, objective occurrences which are unpredictable and irrecoverable despite all measures taken, Employees will not have to pay compensation. What are the “other acts” in this context? Assets here mean tangible assets only or include enterprises’ intangible assets (e.g. trademarks, prestige etc.). For other violations that also cause material damage to Employers but do not fall into circumstances above, how do Employees pay compensations?
Bài viết tiếp theoQuestion 123: Pursuant to Article 42.1 of the Labor Code, when unilaterally terminating LCs against labour law, Employers must accept Employees back to work under the signed LCs and pay salaries, social insurance and health insurance premiums for the days when Employees are not allowed to work. As such, if the LC term is definite and the court’s judgment requests Employers to accept Employees back to work, then:
RELATED ARTICLES
- Advertisment -spot_img
spot_img

Most Popular

Recent Comments