How is it more profitable to quit: by reduction or by agreement of the parties?
It is more profitable (fininsovo) to quit on a reduction.
Firstly, the employer must give a notice of reduction two months before the planned dismissal of the employee, i.e. You are guaranteed to have two months of paid work.
Secondly, upon dismissal by reduction, the employee is paid severance pay(its amount roughly corresponds to a monthly salary).
In addition, you can (and should) apply to the employment service and receive unemployment benefits during the year.
In case of dismissal by agreement of the parties, no severance pay is paid (only compensation for unused vacation) and on the stock exchange keep will be not a year, but nine months. In addition, the employer can ask for quit without working off, on the day of application.
While working in one of the banks, there was a reduction. Our manager also offered to leave employees by agreement of the parties. But, at the same time, the organization paid a bonus (to those who agreed) in the amount of two salaries. Many agreed to this option of dismissal (especially, workers of retirement age, who will not be registered with the Employment Fund, with the payment of benefits).
If the employer is not so generous, for moneyquot ;, it is more profitable to leave on a reduction.
There is one more nuance - an entry in the work book. I don’t know how much attention is paid to the reason why an employee was fired. Maybe there are employers who do not want to hire abbreviated , then it is better to dismiss by agreement of the parties; choose.
From personal experience I can say that (just from the bank) I left on a reduction and no negative impact this entry in my work book when applying new job did not provide.
It is much more profitable to quit your job to reduce. This gives much more advantages, starting from severance pay upon dismissal and ending with an entry point in the work book. It is also a plus that later it will be easier to find a job and stand in line at the employment agency.
When they are fired on a reduction, they are required to warn two weeks in advance. Upon dismissal, an entry is made in the work book and the full salary and one more salary for the month in advance are paid. Upon dismissal by agreement of the parties, only wages for the period worked are paid. No severance pay is due unless otherwise agreed upon at the time of termination.
It's better to get laid off. Because in addition to paying wages and compensation for unused vacation, the employer, according to the Labor Law, must still pay a certain amount (unless, of course, you do not work under a contract for up to two months). If you were officially employed, then the employer must pay the average monthly salary before you start a new job (the period for this payment is two months from the date of reduction). They can also pay for the third month, but by decision of the employment service. This is possible only if you registered with the employment center within two weeks after your dismissal and did not get a new job within three months. When paying the average monthly earnings for the period of employment, the amount of the severance pay paid upon dismissal is offset. Payment of average earnings for the period of employment is made after the end of the month during which the employee was not employed, and after the submission of relevant documents.
I think that the best way to reduce it is for new interviews you will be like an alibi that you were not fired and that you left the position through no fault of your own. As a person with extensive experience in interviews, I advise)))
It is best to quit with a reduction. The biggest plus is that the company pays you severance pay. This is not to mention the fact that at the same time you are informed about the reduction 2 months in advance, i.e. during this time you can find something for yourself. And in the center of employment, at least so, at least so they put it right away. But in my experience, since I am with my latest work left by agreement of the parties, I can say that when looking for a new job, it was quite difficult for everyone potential employer explain the situation in connection with which I left previous work And not everyone liked this situation.
AT this case it’s better for you to quit on a reduction, because the news of the last one was unexpected for you and it will take you time to find a new job. While looking for a job, the employment center will pay you an allowance that will be slightly less than your salary for almost half a year.
If you have already found a job when you were informed about the reduction, then it makes sense to quit by agreement of the parties.
By agreement of the parties, it is more profitable.
Dismissal by agreement of the parties allows you to get more money upon dismissal, with the correct individual agreement with the boss (usually paid from 5 average monthly salaries)
Upon dismissal to reduce payments are regulated by law and cannot be increased.
It is not entirely clear from the question what exactly the boss is proposing - there will be an official reduction in staff units at the enterprise, or simply in this way he announces that he wants to get rid of the employee.
If the employee has no other offers (for work), and this statement of the boss is a surprise for him, then you can try to tell the boss that he prefers an official reduction, then the company will need to submit some additional reporting to the proper authorities. And the boss (depending on which one, of course) can be stopped by such a firm position of an employee. Since if the employee himself writes a statement (by agreement of the parties or by own will), there is no need for the boss to issue layoff orders, and it remains to be seen whether such official layoffs will actually be made.
If there is no more desire to stay at such a job, especially after such words of the boss, then write a statement by agreement of the partiesquot ;, take all the salary certificates, and go to the employment service, you can receive benefits there for some time, and look for further work .
In general, the answer to this question is that one must act according to the circumstances, it happens that for one person there will be the best option reduction, and for the other - dismissal by agreement of the parties.
Is it possible to quit by agreement of the parties, when the reduction has already been announced?
I have already quit my job several times and always only by agreement of the parties. Sometimes I had to work for a month, but if I managed to agree with the boss, I left work immediately. They paid only wages and compensation for unused vacation days. Therefore, layoffs, in my opinion, look much more profitable, because they pay a severance pay in the amount of a monthly salary, which is quite good for an unemployed person.
The answer to the question how it is more profitable to quit by reduction or by agreement of the parties, depends on what position the employee occupies and what plans he builds for the future.
If the position of an employee is associated with financial responsibility or is high enough, and after dismissal it is expected to quickly get a new job, then it is more profitable to quit by agreement of the parties. In this case, the employee receives a one-time compensation amount, can immediately get a new job, and in case of material liability claims, it will be covered by an agreement, which, as a rule, includes the phrase that the parties have no claims against each other.
If the employee is not going to look for a job right away, but is going to take a break, then it is better to quit due to redundancy to be able to receive average earnings for some time.
In order to understand how best to quit - by reduction or by agreement of the parties, it is necessary to take into account all the features of each process.
In addition, there individual characteristics upon termination of each employee. Reduction or dismissal by agreement of the parties may be different option for a number of categories of workers.
If there is a dismissal due to reduction or agreement of the parties, then the compensation will be different. What is better for the employee will depend on his qualifications and preferential grounds, that is, the more benefits the employee has and positive sides(experience, qualifications, length of service), the more he will receive with a standard reduction. In addition, the reduction or agreement of the parties has individual characteristics.
Important! By agreement of the parties, the dismissed person will receive only what is provided for in the agreement, that is, any employee may not receive many of the payments due to him.
What is more profitable often depends on numerous factors, so you should study well all the features of layoffs of one type or another. In addition, the reduced in the future will have more rights to appeal if violations were made.
The reduction takes place in accordance with legislative norms and rules. In this case, there are a number of disadvantages. Among them are:
It also has a number of advantages:
An employee can receive 2 salaries at once, as well as severance pay. In this case, a cash payment will be made within 2-3 months if the work is not found.
It should be borne in mind that employment is more problematic than after leaving for another reason.
It provides for a mutual agreement that will take into account all the features of the process, while respecting a sparing regime for the employee and the employer. This process also has its advantages, which include:
It is especially important that the clause on the existence of an agreement is entered in the work book.
This type also has a number of disadvantages that are worth mentioning. These include:
The contract provides for all the features of the process, that is, all points on compensation and other payments are considered there. On these points, this option is superior to the reduction, but, on the other hand, the employer may pay a smaller amount. Everything here will depend on negotiation process and employee consent.
Especially important condition will be correct order registration and compliance with all legal norms and nuances, for example:
The employee can agree with the employer on any conditions that will be officially certified. In some cases, the total compensation and benefit of the employee is several times higher than in another case. But there is also a lesser benefit. The basis is a complete study of the documentation, since after signing this document, it is no longer possible to change this document.
You can only appeal the agreement in a few cases. For example, if the employer illegally fired and forged documents. There is also a variant of pressure, but these cases will have to be proved in judicial order with the inclusion of the entire evidence base. In this case, the only possibility of a valid appeal will be the incorrect execution of documents and contracts, but employers very rarely make such mistakes, since such documentation is important.
It turns out that when different options termination of labor relations, the employee is more protected, but does not have the opportunity to increase his benefits. By agreement, this is possible.
When choosing, it is worth considering several features of layoffs, since a reduction for an employee or a dismissal due to a reduction in staff will differ from the agreement of the parties. Therefore, it is necessary to compare:
Only after a complete comparison is the choice made. If desired, the agreement has more options, but the employer can also cut compensation payments very drastically.
Important! After dismissal by agreement, it is almost impossible to appeal the terms of the contract if all legal norms and rules were observed during registration.
Different options for layoffs have both their advantages and disadvantages. If you need to quickly change jobs, then a number of options for the usual process will not work. Also, they are not suitable, if possible, to get really those conditions that will fully pay for the process.
In fact, the choice depends only on the ability to negotiate with the employer, who can make serious concessions, including monetary ones, if he has special circumstances.
The dismissed person, when choosing a method of dismissal, must take into account the whole range of conditions. For some workers, leaving a redundancy position will be a priority option. Although the standard abbreviation has more positive aspects. It is more difficult to reduce an employee due to the rules of labor relations, while the agreement of the parties is distinguished by its simplicity, both for the employee and for the manager who benefits from this process.
How to choose a method of dismissal of "extra" employees
Why layoffs are risky
Is it possible to provide for the amount of "compensation" in the employment contract
In conditions financial crisis most companies are reducing the number of employees. There are two ways to carry out this procedure. By reducing the number or staff (clause 2, part 1, article 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation) or by dismissal by agreement of the parties (Article 78 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). Each option has its pros and cons. Therefore, the final choice is best made taking into account an assessment of all the circumstances in a particular situation.
Downsizing or downsizing: there are many risks involved in a time-consuming procedure
Downsizing is the complete removal of one or more positions on the staffing table. For example, the company will no longer have such a position as an assistant secretary. And the reduction in the number of employees means a decrease in the number of staff units for a specific position: there were five assistant secretaries, and there will be two.
The procedure for dismissal with a reduction in staff and the number of employees is the same. This procedure is multi-stage, and skipping any one step may give the employee a chance to subsequently challenge the dismissal in court and be reinstated with compensation for forced absenteeism in accordance with part 2 of article 394 Labor Code(paragraph 29 of the resolution of the Plenum Supreme Court RF dated March 17, 2004 No. 2). That is, the slightest oversight can lead to additional costs instead of the planned savings.
Step one: selection of candidates for dismissal. It is necessary to make a list of positions that management plans to reduce and the employees occupying these positions. From their number, it is necessary to immediately exclude those who, in principle, cannot be fired due to staff reduction (Article 261 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation): pregnant women; women with a child under three years old; single mothers with a child under 14 years old, and if the child is disabled, then up to 18 years old; employees raising a child without a mother. From the rest of the workers, it is necessary to choose those who have the right to preferential abandonment at work (Article 179 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). It is also very risky to fire them.
Verification of preemptive right is required in two cases. Firstly, when the number decreases (out of several employees in the same position, some must be fired, and some must be left). And, secondly, when a certain position is reduced altogether, but the company remains almost homogeneous in terms of the content of the labor function of the position, otherwise named in the staffing table.
First of all, the criteria determining the preferential right of an employee to "immunity" in case of staff reduction are higher labor productivity and qualifications (part 1 of article 179 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). If higher qualifications can be confirmed by the presence of specialized education and longer work experience, then labor productivity in some specialties is difficult to measure. Meanwhile, the lack of a clear justification for why this particular employee was fired (why he is worse than those left) may lead to the recognition of the dismissal as illegal.
Therefore, if management wants to give preference to a particular employee, but his qualifications cannot be called higher with certainty, then it is necessary to consider criteria for comparing the productivity of this employee with others, taking into account the specifics of their activities. The results can be presented in the form of a comparative characteristic.
If the qualifications and labor productivity are the same, then the choice of a candidate for dismissal is carried out according to the criteria of the "second priority". Preference is given to the employee who has one of the circumstances specified in paragraph 2 of Article 179 of the Labor Code. For example, on his full content at least two disabled family members or all of his close relatives do not have independent earnings.
It seems that in order to establish these circumstances, companies should request from all employees whose positions are supposed to be reduced documents on the composition of family members, their age and social status (do they work or not, and if not, for what reasons - retirement age, disability etc.). With massive layoffs, this is a very laborious process. Since the family circumstances of employees may change by the time of dismissal, it is better to double-check the data just before the layoff to be sure.
An employee's refusal to sign the notice may make the entire procedure illegal. Unlike others personnel documents in relation to this warning, the Labor Code does not allow the possibility of replacing a signature with a note that the employee refused to sign.
When candidates for dismissal are selected on the basis of a lack of preferential right to remain at work for family reasons, it is better to warn about the possible dismissal not only of them, but also of other employees in a similar or similar position who, at the time of comparison, had reasons for “immunity”. This is necessary just in case, in two months, circumstances change so much that it is necessary to fire someone who was not originally planned.
In the notification, it is also necessary to offer the employee all the vacancies available to the company both in terms of his qualifications and in lower and lower paid positions (part 3 of article 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). If the company has branches and representative offices, then the employee must be offered work for vacancies within the "same locality". For example, for all branches within the same city and its region (determination of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 03.11.06 No. 5-B06-94). If a vacancies No, you need to write about it directly in the notification.
Step three: dismissal and payment of compensation. The head of the company issues an order to reduce the staff or number of employees and approves a new staffing table (form No. T-3, approved by order of the State Statistics Committee of Russia dated 05.01.04 No. 1).
Orders are also issued for the dismissal of warned employees (parts 1, 2 of article 84.1 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation), the corresponding entries are made in their work books.
On the last day of work, each employee must be paid not only the salary for the last month, but also a special severance pay in the amount of his average monthly earnings, unless a higher amount is established in the employment or collective agreement (Article 178 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). If at the end of the first month after the dismissal, the former employee does not get a new job, then the company must also pay him the days of "non-employment" of the second month after the dismissal (also in the amount of average earnings).
For example, an employee was fired on November 30, 2008. I got a new job on January 19, 2009. On the day of dismissal, he is entitled to a severance pay in the amount of the average monthly earnings. In addition, the company will have to pay for the period from December 31 to January 18. If the employee in our example does not find a job after two months after the dismissal (up to January 31), then the company will have to pay the second month in full.
If in the third month from the date of dismissal the former employee did not go to work, then the company pays the average monthly salary for this month according to the decision of the employment service. But provided that the employee applied there within two weeks after the dismissal. In addition, exceptional reasons are required for payment for the third month - for example, absence from the family former employee any other sources of income (decree of the Federal Arbitration Court of the Volga District dated July 5, 2007 in case No. A12-20261 / 06). Otherwise, the company has the right to challenge the decision of the employment service in court as a non-normative act.
An employee can be dismissed even before the expiration of two months after the warning, provided that he gave written agreement(part 3 of article 180 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). However, in this case, he additional compensation- for the period after the dismissal until the day when two months expire from the date of the notice of dismissal (question 18 from the Review of Legislation and Judicial Practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation for the first quarter of 2007, approved by the decision of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 30.05.07).
Dismissal by agreement of the parties: safe, but requires the consent of employees
Dismissal by agreement of the parties has undeniable advantages. Firstly, this dismissal is not at the initiative of the administration. This means that it is practically impossible for employees to subsequently appeal it in court. Secondly, the procedure is very simple - it is enough to sign an agreement in which to establish a term for terminating the employment contract. There is no need to notify either the trade union or the employment service. Finally, on this basis, any employee can be dismissed - the restrictions established in Article 261 of the Labor Code do not apply in this case.
Dismissal by agreement of the parties (Article 78 of the Labor Code) and dismissal of one's own free will is not identical concepts. In the first case, both parties, and not just the employee, express their will regarding the termination of the employment contract. Therefore, after signing the agreement, the employee cannot then change his mind and refuse to quit, as in case of dismissal of his own free will (part 4 of article 80 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).
To convince an employee to quit by agreement of the parties, companies usually also pay some kind of "compensation", although the Labor Code does not provide for such an obligation. It seems that this payment should not be less than the one that the employee can count on in case of reduction, otherwise there is simply no reason for him to leave the company by agreement. However, given that the employee does not need to be warned about the dismissal by agreement of the parties in advance, the company will be able to cut its staff faster. This means that, as with a reduction, you will not have to pay an extra two months' salary before dismissal and maintain jobs. But we emphasize that savings are possible only if the employee is satisfied with the amount proposed by the company.
True, when choosing a more economical option, one must also take into account the fact that it is safer to pay the "compensation" by agreement of the parties at the expense of net profit. Tax officials often insist that they cannot be attributed to expenses that reduce the tax base for income tax (as opposed to compensation for downsizing, which is directly indicated among labor costs in paragraph 9 of Article 255 of the Tax Code).
The fact is that this payment is not named in the Labor Code and is associated with the termination of the employment contract, and not with wages. In fact, this is a moot point. For example, the Ministry of Finance of Russia believes that compensation can be included in expenses if it is provided for by an employment contract (letter No. 03-03-06/1/546 of September 26, 2008). However, the courts still support the tax authorities (decisions of the federal arbitration courts of the Moscow District dated April 16, 07 in case No. KA-A40 / 2100-07, of the Far Eastern District dated December 12, 07 No. F03-A24 / 07-2 / 5014).
| If the company has a union, it must also be warned about the reduction in staff This is a mandatory step, due to non-compliance with which the court may recognize the reduction as illegal (paragraph 24 of the decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of March 17, 04 No. 2). The employer must notify the trade union in writing of the upcoming reductions no later than two months before the start of the relevant events, and if the reductions are massive, three months in advance (part 1 of article 82 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). According to the ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of January 15, 2008 No. 201-O-P, “the beginning of the events” is considered the beginning of the termination of employment contracts with employees. That is, it is necessary to notify the trade union simultaneously with the warning of workers, and if mass layoffs, then a month before notifying employees. The general criteria for the mass layoffs are determined in sectoral and territorial agreements between employers and trade union organizations (the procedure for their conclusion and operation is established in articles 47 and 48 of the Labor Code). |
Which exit option to choose
| Grounds for dismissal | pros | Minuses | When is the best time to use |
| Downsizing | 1. The employee is not entitled to refuse dismissal (initiative of the employer) 2. Compensatory payments reduce the income tax base | 1. Complexity and duration of the procedure 2. Labor intensity (requires the execution of a large number of documents) 3. Danger of contestation (any oversight can lead to the reinstatement of an employee) 4. Cost (payment for two months of work plus compensation, which can reach the amount of payment for three months) | 1. When the likelihood of a challenge is low (preemptive right to stay at work does not apply at all, there are no vacancies, employees have signed a notice of an upcoming reduction) 2. When an employee refuses to leave by agreement of the parties 3. When it is fundamentally important for a company to attribute compensation to expenses for tax purposes |
| Agreement of the parties | 1. Quick and easy procedure 2. The probability of challenging the dismissal is practically reduced to zero 3. Compensation is not limited by the minimum limit | 1. Possible only with the consent of the employee 2. Compensation payments - only at the expense of net profit | 1. When there is a high risk of challenging a layoff (for example, it is difficult to determine who has the advantage of staying at work) 2. When the employee did not sign the notice of the upcoming reduction (higher compensation can be offered) 3. If it is more important to carry out layoffs quickly than to save on compensation |
| The untold story of one wrong contraction Ruslan Konorev, an attorney at the Moscow Bar Association Knyazev & Partners, shares his experience: “I represented in court the interests of a former employee of a large company who was laid off. The company made comparative characteristic this employee with another who held a similar position. It followed that my client was less productive. We proved that in addition to my client, four other people in the company, despite the different titles of their positions, performed the same functions. Even their salaries were the same. Through the court, we simply demanded from the defendant job descriptions these employees and the terminated employee. The testimonies of employees and the plaintiff himself helped. Because the company did not compare my client's performance and skills to those of the four employees when they fired, they did not fully determine whether my client was eligible for preferential retention. Consequently, Article 179 of the Labor Code was violated. The employee was reinstated." |
How is dismissal carried out by agreement of the parties upon reduction, and is it worth starting such a procedure at all? Let's try to figure it out.
According to labor law, the employer has the right to dismiss his employee only in certain cases. One such case where an employer has the unconditional right to get rid of an employee is downsizing or job cuts. Of course, the procedure is not the easiest, but according to the second paragraph of Article 81, the head of the enterprise or its owner can initiate the process of terminating the employment contract if the organization plans to reduce staff or staff units.
First of all, it should be noted that downsizing and downsizing are different concepts, although the dismissal procedure is the same in both cases. When the position is reduced from staffing such a unit is simply withdrawn, for example, a commodity specialist ceases to serve at an enterprise from a certain date, and the functions that an employee performed in this position are either redistributed among other employees, or they no longer need to be performed. When the staff is reduced, there are simply fewer positions. For example, the enterprise had five merchandisers, and to save money or in connection with the closure of a branch, two would be enough for successful operation.
Thus, in both cases, we see that several employees need to be fired, and the procedure will be the same, although there will be slightly different wording in the order for the enterprise.
Despite the fact that the manager or owner has the right at any time, acting in the interests of his enterprise, to announce a reduction, he cannot, for example, decide today to fire ten people, and tomorrow put them on the street with work books in hand. The procedure is built as follows:
Two months before the expected date of dismissal, the employer must notify the employee in writing about this. Moreover, each employee must be warned personally, and everyone must sign that he was warned. The act stating that the employee refused to sign is not accepted, in which case the dismissal may be declared illegal.
The period of two months begins to count from the date that the employee puts under the warning. If mass layoffs are planned, the period should not be two, but three months. At the same time, it is necessary to submit a written notification to the employment service, the number and candidates of those who are supposed to be reduced must be agreed with the trade union organization, if there is one at the enterprise.
We remind you that the employer does not have the right to dismiss:
Reduction by agreement of the parties is primarily beneficial to the employer
But even those who are tipped as candidates for layoffs should not be allowed to leave the enterprise just like that. The employer is obliged to offer them to take available similar vacancies. If there are none or employees do not want to move to such positions, it is necessary to offer all available vacancies, even if they are less paid, require less qualifications or require moving to another area. All offers and refusals must be recorded in writing.
And only after that it is possible to issue an order for the enterprise in the form of T-8.
You need to know that, even when choosing candidates for layoffs not from those employees who definitely cannot be touched, you can still fall under legal proceedings.
Let's say you lay off three merchandisers out of five, out of three candidates selected for dismissal, the work experience is the same as that of the employee who remains at the enterprise. You motivate your choice, for example, labor productivity or labor discipline. Be ready, if necessary, to provide documents that will confirm your case, even if only a simple description of the employee - otherwise the dismissal may be declared illegal.
As in the general case, when reducing on the last working day, the employer must issue former employees all Required documents and all funds due for that day, namely:
According to the law, the company must pay compensation to the laid-off employee in the amount of the average monthly salary. If the internal documents of the organization state otherwise - for example, that compensation is due in the amount of five average earnings, then the payment will be as recorded.
If a dismissed employee was registered with the employment center immediately after the dismissal (no later than two weeks after this event), but could not find a new job for himself in two months, his former employer must pay benefits for these two months.
Even if the employee quits himself, without waiting until time will pass from the moment of his warning until the liquidation of his position, the head will still pay benefits: in the amount of average earnings for all those days that the employee did not wait. That is, if the employee was supposed to be fired on June 30, and left of his own free will on May 3, he is entitled to compensation for the period from May 4 to June 30. And, of course, if this is a dismissal of his own free will, the employee can change his mind and withdraw his application at any time.
Of course, the agreement of the parties is more beneficial, first of all, to the enterprise than to the employee: there is no need to notify the employment center and the trade union, there is no need to continue to keep an unnecessary position in the state, you can reduce the cost of severance pay. In addition, if the employee signs certain clauses of the agreement, he will not subsequently be able to change his mind, for example, withdraw his letter of resignation or ask to be transferred to another vacancy.
Of course, employees often understand that it is more profitable for them to wait until the reduction period approaches, and during this time, slowly find themselves another workplace, therefore, the only way the employer can persuade them to agree to an agreement is a good compensation. And here it must be borne in mind that these funds will come from the net profit of the enterprise, they cannot be written into amounts that reduce the tax base, since such payments are not related to wages.
Problem
Hello! once again (and probably the last time on the labor issue). A question of this nature: today I wrote a letter of resignation by agreement of the parties (due to staff reduction). I'm interested in this moment: how is the accrual of settlement funds (for two months)? Are they subject to income tax? Why? From actually earned wages (from which I have already paid), or from the amount of accruals? Should I be paid on average when calculating? And how can they keep from this "average" what has already been withheld?! Or they will calculate the accruals for me Last year(general, that is, those that have been accrued at all) and will they be withheld from them ?! or will they deduct from the "clean" (those who received in the form of a salary) ??? But I have already paid from them! Please explain! Yes, I'm sorry, I CONGRATULATE YOU WITH MAY HOLIDAYS and WISH YOU PATIENCE AND SUCCESS IN YOUR HARD WORK!!! Respectfully! Sasha
Solution
Hello Anna!
Well, if you do not understand what you will be paid when signing the documents for dismissal by agreement of the parties, then you will first leave the parental leave.
And then discuss all payments, the only thing I can say for sure is that they must pay compensation for non-vacation leave, both upon dismissal by reduction, and upon dismissal by agreement of the parties.
And yet, look at this situation from a different angle, that many employers look at the article dismissed for redundancy, as if they are laying off the most unnecessary, not promising, superfluous workers.
Although, dismissal to reduce payments is more profitable, but that's up to you. But who is stopping you from discussing these payments upon dismissal by agreement of the parties, and not just discussing them, but so that the components of all payments are fully written in the agreement on termination of the employment contract:
1. Compensation for unused vacation
2. Severance pay
3. For the period worked until the day of dismissal (if you will work for some period after leaving parental leave).
