Judgment of the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic (the “Supreme Court”) dated 14 January 2026, Case No. 21 Cdo 351/2024, concerning the interpretation of the concept of wage and employment conditions of a comparable employee during temporary assignment.
Summary of the Facts
The claimant was employed by the defendant company and, based on a temporary assignment agreement, was assigned to perform work for another employer (the user employer). After the temporary assignment ended, the claimant sought payment of remuneration differences, including a difference in employer contributions to supplementary pension insurance, which were provided to the user employer’s core employees at a higher level than to the claimant. Lower courts dismissed this part of the claim, concluding that pension insurance contributions do not constitute employment or wage conditions within the meaning of Section 43a(6) of the Labour Code, as they are not regulated by labour law regulations
Legal Issue Addressed by the Supreme Court
Whether employer contributions (by another employer) to supplementary pension insurance form part of employment and wage (salary) conditions within the meaning of Section 43a(6) of the Labour Code.
Conclusions of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court concluded that they do. Employer contributions to supplementary pension insurance must be considered another monetary benefit falling within employment and wage conditions to which the principle of equal treatment applies pursuant to Section 16(1) in conjunction with Section 43a(6) of the Labour Code.
The Supreme Court emphasized that:
- it is not decisive whether a specific benefit is explicitly regulated by the Labour Code,
- it is essential that the benefit is provided to comparable employees of the user employer within their employment relationship,
- the interpretation of Section 43a(6) of the Labour Code cannot be limited solely to “traditional” wage components.
Equal Treatment in Temporary Assignment
Section 43a(6) of the Labour Code does not define a narrower scope of the equal treatment principle than Section 16(1) of the Labour Code. The equal treatment principle therefore applies to temporarily assigned employees in full scope, including the provision of other monetary benefits and benefits with monetary value.An opposite interpretation would contradict the purpose of the legislation, which aims to prevent misuse of temporary assignment to obtain cheaper labour.
Impact of the Judgment
Employers assigning employees temporarily must ensure that the overall scope of employment and wage conditions is not less favourable than that of comparable employees of the user employer. This also applies to benefits such as pension or life insurance contributions, provided such benefits are commonly granted by the user employer.
The decision has significant implications not only for temporary assignment but may also analogously affect agency employment (Section 309(5) of the Labour Code). Employment agencies should therefore reassess the provision of benefits to their temporarily assigned employees.