Currently: Supreme Court suggests abolishing reassignment of employees without their consent

The repeal is intended to prevent “unfreedom” and better protect workers’ rights

In the aforementioned proposal addressed to the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court refers to the current regulation as a relic of the socialist era, when the emphasis was on stability of employment relations and full employment. “The institute of transfer to another job was therefore also one of the ways to prevent undesirable turnover of workers, contribute to the stability of employment relations and minimise unemployment,” the proposal states.

Under the current law, an employer can reassign an employee without his or her consent in certain circumstances. The disputed provision specifically applies to situations where an employee is unable, for example, for health reasons, to continue in the position agreed in the employment contract. The law gives the employer the possibility to transfer the employee to another type of work “even if the employee does not agree to it.” This, of course, can negatively affect the employee’s job satisfaction and stability. The Supreme Court therefore proposes an amendment to the Labour Code that would make reassignment to another job conditional on the consent of both parties, except in the public interest (e.g., a flood situation).

The public interest is likely to continue to take precedence over the will of the employee, even if the Constitutional Court intervenes

The Supreme Court notes that employers’ respect for the autonomous decisions of their employees should still prevail. “Thus, the basis for change should be the agreement of both parties. Unilateral transfer should only be possible in cases where the public interest is at stake, i.e. an interest that goes beyond the interests of the employee,” the proposal reads.

Moreover, the proposal refers to the prohibition of forced labour, a fundamental right protected by the Czech constitutional order. According to the Supreme Court, the current regulation, which allows for unilateral reassignment of employees, is contrary to these principles of protecting employees and their decent working conditions.

Change will strengthen dialogue between employer and employee

If adopted, the proposal will bring about another change in employment relations that will strengthen the need for dialogue between employer and employee. This dialogue should ensure that changes in job classifications are made by agreement and not unilaterally, thus avoiding unforeseen changes that may unduly burden employees.

The Supreme Court’s proposal is thus arguably a step towards creating fairer working conditions and empowering employees to decide on their work assignments. The Constitutional Court will now decide whether to approve this major change to the Labour Code.

It has its pitfalls. Indeed, the Labour Code is often outdated, although to describe it as a relic of socialism is an exaggeration. We need a flexible working environment, but one that provides decent conditions for both parties. Perhaps the trial before the Constitutional Court will be an opportunity to move towards it again.