Many times in labor relations employer decides to make changes without the consent of the employees, including adverse change in conditions of employment. Is there a right to the employee preventing from the employers to do so?
While the employer has the right to determine the employees' employment conditions and to change them (positive or negative), protective labor laws are designed to balance the right of the employer and the rights of employees and to ensure that employees are protected even in such cases.
Changes constitute an appreciable deterioration in conditions of employment, defined by law as changes that because of them it cannot be expected from employee to continue working, are part of the rights of the employer. However, in this case the employee may resign and his resignation may be considered a dismissal if the employee has completed one year of work for the employer.
In a judgment of March, 2015, the National Labor Court discussed a case in which an employee resigned due to appreciable deterioration in condition of employment and demanded not only severance pay but also pension rights. The Court held that the pension right is defined in the pension regulation and apply only on employee who was dismissed. Therefore, as long as the legislature did not explicitly state within the pension regulations that these rights will be granted in the case of resignation because of an appreciable deterioration in employment conditions and where there is no employment contract stating that pension rights will be granted in the case of such resignation, the employee does not have eligibility for pension rights under such circumstances.
The ruling of the National Labor Court in this case raises two difficulties. Firstly, it seems that the ruling ignoring the purpose of the law- protect employees, and in practice discriminates employees who have resigned due to an adverse change in employment conditions. Secondly, the Court's requirement that at the time of signing on the labor agreement parties (especially when a large proportion did not sign a labor agreement) will include section dealing with event of adverse conditions change- a demand that reflects detachment from the reality of labor relations.
In practice, the puzzling case law of the Court also provides an incentive for employers in some cases adversely modify conditions of employees to get them to resign, rather than dismiss them, and "save" money. Let alone that it was not the legislature intention but it also does not seem to be the intention of the Court to undermine the basic principles of protective labor laws.
In light of this, at least until the legislature will intervene and change the regulations or until the ruling of the National Court will be canceled, it is recommended that both employees and employers adhere to anchor their relationship within labor agreements and consult with an attorney who specializes in the field in the stage of drafting the labor agreement to include such rights and others constituting far-reaching economic implications.