By Christos Christos *:
The question is simple and straightforward: does the non-reaction of the employee to a reduction of salary announced to him afterwards, mean acceptance? The majority of employers and employees instinctively answer yes. The Limassol District Court, in its decision for case no. 2507/15, subverts this deep-rooted belief, in a clear and substantiated manner.
Knowledge of the basic provisions of the Laws on the Protection of Wages of 2007 and 2012, is required to more easily understand the facts and the essence of the decision. Due to space, only Article 10 (1) of that legislation is cited which stipulates that
"Or deductions from the salary are not allowed, except:
(a) cuts provided for by law or regulation;
(b) cuts in accordance with the regulations of pension funds, provident funds and health care;
(c) deductions by court order;
(d) deductions for compensation for damage suffered by the undertaking which was caused intentionally or by gross negligence of the employee; and
(e) other severance pay, with the consent of the employee. "
The facts of the case show the company manager reducing, without the knowledge of the affected employee, his salary by € 500. The manager's defense in the Court was based, inter alia, on the fact that the employee did not react when he was subsequently informed of the reduction in his salary. The article related to this issue is the 10 (1) (e) above.
The Court, by strictly interpreting Article 10 (1) (e), as required by the very purpose for which the legislation was enacted, comes to a milestone decision on labor that is really worth transposing:
"Emphasis should be placed on the phrase 'after consent' which implies that not only should a consent be given but that such consent should be obtained before the cut-off takes place. The reason is simple. If salary cuts have drastic consequences for an employee, the latter, before deciding whether to consent or not, should be free to evaluate all the data before him. However, this cannot be done by the employee, when he / she is put before accomplished events, ie after the decision to cut is made, and his only options are either to consent or to resign. The direct and drastic influence of the personal interests of the employee as well as the "acquired right" he acquires in a certain salary from an employment contract, do not allow the unilateral change of the terms of employment, especially when such a change is unfavorable for him (see REPUBLIC n. MENELAOU (1982) 3 A.A.D. 419). Only with the consent and explicit consent of the employee can the employer proceed with a pay cut and the fact that an employee did not react when informed of the severance afterwards, can not automatically be reduced to his explicit consent to the layoff. "His data has now changed and even to his detriment."
Christ of Christ
Department of Labor Relations
Ministry of Labor, Welfare and Social Insurance
cchristou@dlr.mlsi.gov.cy