Case Summary
In this case, the plaintiff sought the difference in performance-based pay for the years 2020 and 2021, as her employer had reduced the amounts due to her sick leave during those years. The reduced payment was based on the company’s collective agreement. It considered attendance as a criterion for determining the performance-based pay amount.
Supreme Court’s Explanation
The Supreme Court emphasized that performance-based pay is a collective reward based on the company’s overall success, not on the individual contribution of each employee. Business performance depends on numerous factors, so, as a rule, all employees should be included in this type of reward.
The court specifically highlighted that, although the Employment Relationships Act does not mandate performance-based pay, it prohibits discrimination in such payments. This means that employers may not treat employees unequally based on personal circumstances, such as health conditions.
Issue of Discrimination
While employers can consider attendance as a criterion for determining payment amounts, this criterion must not lead to discrimination. In this case, the court found that the plaintiff was treated less favorably due to her illness compared to other employees. That constituted discrimination based on her health status.
The issue of discrimination in awarding performance-based bonuses has been raised before, including by the Advocate of the Principle of Equality. Miha Lobnik highlighted cases of unequal treatment due to factors like parenthood, pregnancy, and illness.
The full judgment is available on the court’s website: Decision VIII Ips 9/2024
If you need consulting services, feel free to reach out to our Unija Consulting experts through the Inquiry Form.
