Does the employer have to repay the government grant if he sends the employee on vacation? It seems not, although there are also opposing opinions.
The so-called. the anti-crisis shield does not explain it directly, but it seems that the employer who covers employees with economic downtime and asks the government for co-financing in this respect, may also demand co-financing while the employee is on holiday.
The anti-crisis shield says that an employer whose turnover with a value indicated there may be able to introduce economic downturn in his work, send people home and submit an application to finance the remuneration of such employees. The legal and practical problem concerns the fact that, in addition, the Act uses the concept of remuneration “and it is not known what elements of this remuneration includes. In addition to the basic remuneration, the employee may be entitled to, for example, holiday remuneration for holiday leave. Is this remuneration subsidized? This question the Act does not answer directly. And this is an important practical problem.
Biece and arrears
In the period of economic slowdown, many employers are eager to send employees on holiday leaves, both current and arrears. First of all, they want to reduce the costs that would result from the payment of holiday equivalents in the event of dismissal. Secondly, the employer wants to protect himself against a situation in which, after the end of the epidemic, a wave of vacation requests floods him and he runs out of hands to work when the economy recovers. Hence, the idea is that employees take leave now when work is less.
However, employers have doubts as to whether if the employee went on vacation during economic downtime, they would lose funding. Interpretations in this regard are different.
Some administrative bodies take the view that employers are not entitled to additional funding if an employee who is subject to economic downtime (or reduced working time) will take annual leave.
In the event of economic downtime, this would result from the fact that the employee on leave is not ready for work. Economic space concerns people who, although they do not work, remain ready to work. In other words, when going on vacation, the employee cuts out of economic downtime.
On the other hand, as regards the reduction of full-time employment, opinions are met that the grant only applies to basic salary, and during the leave the employee receives holiday pay. Therefore, the subsidy is not due. As a result, by sending employees on vacation leave, the employer would face the necessity of paying back a grant that would already be withdrawn or would not be available for employees on vacation leave.
Contrary to the aims of the Act
It seems that the above interpretations are too formalistic and contradict the purpose of the special act. Especially that the shield does not directly exclude the right to subsidy in the event of holiday leave, for example in relation to the period of receiving sickness benefit. This exclusion is an exception to the principle that employers receive funding. Therefore, you should not, by analogy, extend to another type of break in your work certificate.
Depriving employers of the right to receive funding in such a situation would be unfair. After all, employers bear the cost of holiday pay in their pocket on the same basis as the cost of basic pay. Therefore, it would be unfair to make their situation worse because of the fact that the basis for paying the salary is work or vacation.
Tomasz Sancewicz legal advisor, Counsel at the CMS Office
The provisions of the anti-crisis shield are full of ambiguities. Partly this is not surprising given the express pace of work on the bill. However, this does not change the fact that making its interpretation should be based to a smaller degree only on literal interpretation, and more attention is paid to the purpose of the Act. The purpose of the act is to threaten business enterprises with economic slowdown and partial coverage of costs that they must bear anyway. Therefore, in terms of assessing what labor costs may be covered by the grant, the dry test is to check whether the employer's benefit covers its own funds, or whether it is financed by the state. The employer should be entitled to a grant for this benefit, which he pays out of his pocket. Therefore, sending an employee on vacation should not negatively affect the right to subsidize his salary. Similar problems are also reported in relation to pay and sickness benefit. The authorities will declare that in this case the subsidy belongs to the sick pay, but not to the sickness allowance. Thus, it seems that the test is recognized by the administration. This fact is to be welcomed.