Písemné nebo ústní ujednání – co má v pracovněprávních vztazích přednost?

In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic addressed the issue of interpreting the intentions of the parties when entering into an employment relationship. Specifically, it dealt with a conflict between a written agreement in the employment contract and an oral promise made by the employer.

The factual situation was as follows: the employee's employment contract specified Prague as the place of work. However, the job advertisement indicated Hodonín as the place of work. Upon signing the employment contract, the employee was orally assured that it was a common practice of the employer for work to be actually performed in Hodonín, despite a different place of work stated in the contract; thus, Hodonín was considered the actual workplace.

Nearly a year later, however, the employer's establishment in Hodonín was closed. The employer subsequently instructed the employee to begin working at the location specified in the employment contract, namely Prague. The employee refused this instruction and continued to request work assignments at the original workplace in Hodonín. He never reported at workplace in Prague Consequently, the employer immediately terminated the employment relationship due to the employee's many days of unexcused absence.

The employee then filed a lawsuit to challenge the validity of this immediate termination. The first-instance court dismissed the lawsuit, stating that the place of work specified in the employment contract is binding. According to the court, the employee cannot unilaterally decide where he will or will not perform work. The appellate court upheld the first-instance ruling. However, the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic overturned their judgments, providing the following reasoning.

According to the Supreme Court, the key element is the actual intention of the parties at the time the employment contract was concluded. The interpretation of the employment contract cannot be limited solely to its formal wording but must also consider the factual circumstances and established practices between the contracting parties. Therefore, the decisive criterion is the intention of the parties involved, or the mutual intention of the contracting parties at the moment of entering into the contract, including what was stated in the job advertisement, provided that such intention was known to the other party or should have been known.

In the given case, it was evident that the parties intended to establish Hodonín as the employee's place of work, not Prague. The Supreme Court thus returned the case to the first-instance court for further proceedings.

In light of this ruling, employers should be cautious about what and how they agree upon with their employees, as well as about the actual intentions of the parties involved. It cannot be excluded that even a written agreement signed by both parties may be interpreted quite differently, particularly based on what the employer orally promised the employee.

Authors:

Kateřina Suchanová

Petra Dobravská