Abuse of Rights in Employment Relationships

In real life, every healthy individual becomes a direct participant in an employment relationship, initially as an employee and, in many cases, later as an employer. These legal relationships are among the most common contractual relationships, which we aim to address in this article.

Principle of Good Morals and Prohibition of Abuse of Rights

Our attention focuses on the application of the fundamental principle enshrined in Article 2 of the Labour Code No. 311/2001 Coll., as amended (hereinafter referred to as the "Labour Code"). According to this principle, the exercise of rights and obligations arising from employment relationships must comply with good morals, and no one may abuse these rights and obligations to the detriment of the other party in the employment relationship or co-workers. We will focus on the principle of good morals and the abuse of rights, which, in many cases, occurs in practice.

It is a fact that employers and employees are in equal positions when entering into an employment contract. However, once an employee begins performing dependent work under the employer’s instructions, on their behalf, during working hours set by the employer, using tools provided by the employer, and under their responsibility, the employee becomes subordinated to the employer.

Abuse of Rights in Practice

From our legal practice, we know that employers often exercise their rights against employees in a manner inconsistent with good morals due to their superior position. One example includes cases where an employer agrees on a specific, typically annual bonus with an employee but never pays it, claiming the employee was not entitled to it, without transparently proving the non-entitlement. Another example involves employers ordering overtime work without equally distributing such work among employees in similar positions. Similarly, unethical conduct by employers includes issuing verbal instructions contradicting internal policies, such as in cases related to travel expense reimbursements.

Conversely, employees can also effectively act against good morals, complicating the employer’s operations and progress, such as by filing complaints to state authorities based on false information. These are just a few examples of how rights may be abused. While there are many more examples, detailing them is not the purpose of this article.

Application of the Principle of Good Morals

In these and similar cases, the fundamental principle of labour law prohibiting the abuse of rights and actions contrary to good morals should be applied. Good morals can be described as "rules of conduct widely recognized in society, forming the foundation of a fundamental value order."[1]. In other words, good morals serve as an indicator of what is generally considered appropriate, correct, and acceptable within social, cultural, or ethical norms. The Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic has stated that the significance of good morals lies in their being a condition for the validity or admissibility of a legal act.

This means that the application of good morals to ordinary interpersonal relationships, including labor law relationships, is intended to prevent the exercise of rights that, while formally complying with the law (for example, an employer always having the right to order overtime work), are carried out in a manner that shows the employer's actions deviate from good morals (for instance, when the employer demands overtime work exclusively from one employee and does not distribute this overtime work evenly among other employees in the same positions).

Judicial Proceedings

Since good morals are part of the legal order of the Slovak Republic, in cases where disputes between an employee and employer escalate to a court case, the court should, in our opinion, always consider how the parties to the dispute exercised their actual or presumed rights against the other party, provided that the court aims to issue a just ruling in the case.

The actual practice in courtrooms, however, is different. Often, the court is literally satisfied with the fact that the letter of the law was formally followed, without considering the circumstances of the case that point to the abuse of rights by one party to the dispute. We believe that such a decision can never acquire the attributes of a fair, convincing, and correct judicial ruling.

We are aware that case law has taken the view that the court's procedure under Section 3(1) of the Civil Code, which contains the definition of good morals, also applicable to labor law relations under Section 1(4) of the Labor Code, should only apply in exceptional situations, when the exercise of a right based on the law occurs for reasons other than achieving economic goals or satisfying other needs, when the primary or at least predominant motivation is the intention to harm or disadvantage the obligated party (so-called abusive exercise of rights), or when it is evident that the exercise of rights leads to unacceptable consequences, both in relation to the participants and in the external position of one of them[2]. This position is justified by the fact that the corrective of good morals must not be to the detriment of the principle of legal certainty and must not unduly weaken the subjective rights of the participants arising from legal norms[3].

Our Perspective

We disagree with this perspective, as it is not necessarily the case that, for instance, the employer's actions must be carried out with the intention of intentionally harming the employee. However, the actual consequence of their actions typically results in subsequent impacts on the employee. Therefore, in the event of negative effects on the employee, the relevant legal acts of the employer should be evaluated in the context of good morals. We perceive that the aforementioned view on the exceptional application of good morals ultimately leads to their neglect by the court, and their non-application even in cases where they should indeed be applied.

In view of this, we believe that conduct in accordance with objective law, but using a form of behavior within the framework of fulfilling the legal prerequisites for the validity of the relevant legal act, which demonstrates characteristics of abuse of rights and bad faith, should always be sanctioned by the loss of the case if these facts concern the essential circumstances of the case.

We believe that the court should always assess and individualize, even without an explicit proposal from the disputing party, whether the conduct leading to an abuse of rights could have had a fundamental impact on the actual factual situation or its legal assessment. The principle of good morals and the prohibition of abuse of rights, in our opinion, cannot be applied only in exceptional cases but should apply in every individual labor dispute. Otherwise, the meaning and character of this fundamental principle of labor law would be negated. Therefore, if the court aspires to be fair, it should always refuse to provide legal protection to the party where there has been a gross violation of morality and a certain social minimum in the exercise of subjective rights. Otherwise, the court could arrive at a manifest injustice that is indefensible and should not be tolerated. For this reason, we believe the court should also examine whether the legal act was not merely a façade and whether it did not create an unlawful situation.

Subsequently, through the lens of Section 39 of the Civil Code, which states that "a legal act is invalid if its content or purpose contradicts the law, evades it, or is contrary to good morals," the court could responsibly and fairly reach a conclusion about whether or not to provide legal protection to those rights negatively affected due to the abuse of rights. Otherwise, this would result in a purely formalistic interpretation of legal provisions by the courts, which, in the context of the Slovak Republic, remains a common occurrence, to the detriment of all participants in labor relations. We are convinced that if courts in labor disputes always assessed the case through the lens of good morals and the prohibition of abuse of rights, they would undoubtedly achieve a general increase in legal certainty in labor relations.

Conclusion

We believe that if the court takes into account the exercise of rights in accordance with good morals in labor relations, and thus does not abstract from the meaning and purpose of the Labor Code and its fundamental principles, it is excluded that it would reach a formalistic interpretation of the law. On the contrary, it would ensure the material protection of legality and, therefore, the generally perceived idea of justice.

In view of the above-mentioned facts, we are of the opinion that in labor law disputes, the court is obliged to take into account, even without a motion, those circumstances that are in any way related to the prohibition of abuse of rights or the prohibition of acting contrary to good morals. If this happens, undoubtedly, many more just and convincing decisions will be made than we are currently witnessing.

The reference: https://www.epravo.sk/top/clanky/zneuzivanie-prav-v-pracovnopravnych-vztahoch-4530.html

___________________________
[1] Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic, file no. IV. ÚS 55/2011-19, dated February 24, 2011.
[2] Available >>> here
[3] Available >>> here