A decision of the Supreme Court shields the payment of the 13th salary and in general any benefit received from an employee regularly and repeatedly. The unanimous decision concerns an appeal against a first instance decision which acquitted a company which in 2013 cut the 13th salary of an employee. The court, in the first instance, accepted the employer's claim that he did not pay a 13th salary, but a voluntary tip for her. Therefore, based on the first instance decision, this is an ex-gratis that, based on the interpretive article 2 of the Law on the Protection of Salaries, Law 35 (I) / 2007, does not fall within the meaning of salary.
The Supreme Court overturned the first instance decision and strengthened the case law for the existing institutional framework for the protection of wages.
In particular, he considered that "it is irrelevant that the complainant signed that they received the amount in question as a 'tip'". This benefit was consistently given to the complainant from his first year of employment, without any heresy or any other conditions and was equivalent to about one salary. As the complainant himself testified - and made a "good impression" in court - in relation to his rights, benefits and pay, there was an oral agreement between him and the defendants "D. whatever the other staff is entitled to, I am also entitled ". This agreement provided for "D. salary, travel, 13th salary… ».
Judges base their reasoning on previous court rulings in Cyprus, as well as Greek courts. Specifically, reference is made to a recent decision of the Supreme Court (1.11.2019) which states:
"From the case of K.K. ν. Ο.Τ.Ε. (Hellenic Telecommunications Organization) it appears that, according to Greek Law, the concept of salary includes any other paid additional benefit in cash or in kind, provided that this benefit is given permanently and permanently. The benefit paid by the employer out of a legal obligation or with the intention of being a consideration for the work provided, if it is paid regularly, is included in the concept of salary. Applying the above principles (s.s. the decision in Greece) the educated first instance judge concluded that in the present case the Christmas gift that the appellant gave consistently, regularly and specifically, that is, every Christmas, and was sufficiently defined if it was approximately equal to the his monthly salary, had the characteristics of the salary as interpreted in the relevant Cypriot law. This arises effortlessly, according to the court of first instance, since the gift-salary was given to all the employees of the appellant. The legal basis for the above interpretation was the interpretative article 2 of the law which states that "salary" means any monetary remuneration, ie salary is any benefit of any form or name, given in exchange for work provided. It does not matter what the benefit is. The salary does not include any special commissions or ex-gratia payments ".
The decision was issued by the judges Mr. Liatsos, Economou, Malakhtos.
Source: politis