Marriage and the Employee’s Matrimony

The marriage and matrimony of an employee affect labour law from several different perspectives. Already in its introductory provision, the Labour Code regulates the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of marital status. The institution of marriage is further reflected in the employer’s obligation to allow the employee to attend his or her own wedding and the weddings of his or her closest relatives, in the prohibition of mutual employment of spouses, and in the entitlements of survivors in the event of the employee’s death. I shall further elucidate in detail these individual consequences of the institution of marriage for the area of labour law.

Prohibition of Discrimination on Grounds of Marital Status

By the amendment to the Labour Code – Act No. 155/2000 Coll., a new provision, Section 1(4), was inserted (with effect from 1 January 2001) into the Labour Code. It provides that any discrimination against an employee on grounds of his or her marital and family status or obligations to the family is prohibited in labour relations. An example of such discrimination may be a situation where the employer, when selecting a new female employee, gives preference to a single female employee over a married one because he fears that the married female employee might become pregnant. Discriminatory conduct by the employer may be challenged either by a complaint to the relevant labour office or by an action for the protection of personality brought before a court.

A breach of the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of marital status may be demonstrated by the following example: Mrs Lenka responded to an advertisement offering a position as a secretary. She was invited to the advertising employer and an interview was conducted with her. During this interview, she had a very good feeling that she was interested in the job and that she met all the requirements stated in the advertisement. During the interview, however, she was asked, inter alia, whether she had a boyfriend, whether she was married, and whether she had or was planning to have children. To this, Mrs Lenka truthfully replied that she had been married for six months and that she was trying to become pregnant. Although she was the only candidate for the position offered and believed that she met all the prerequisites, she was not accepted. If the reason for the decision not to accept Mrs Lenka for the position of secretary was indeed her marriage and her attempt to conceive a child, this would undoubtedly constitute discrimination on grounds of marital status, which is expressly prohibited by the Labour Code. In this case, Mrs Lenka could lodge a complaint with the labour office or bring an action for the protection of personality before a court, or both.

Attendance at a Wedding

The wedding ceremony itself interferes with the sphere of the employee’s employment relationship. If a female employee is getting married or if a male employee is getting married, this constitutes an important personal obstacle to work on their part. The employer is obliged to grant the employee time off work for his or her own wedding for a duration of two days, with one of these two days being the day of the wedding ceremony. For the time off work granted to the employee in connection with his or her wedding, the employer is obliged to pay the employee compensation for wages in the amount of average earnings.

The employee is also entitled to time off work to attend the wedding ceremony of his or her child or parent. In this case, the employee is entitled to one day of time off work with compensation for wages in the amount of his or her average earnings.

Mutual Employment, Cooperation, and Joint Entrepreneurship of Spouses

The Labour Code precludes the creation of any employment relationship between spouses. This means that spouses cannot conclude an employment contract or an agreement on work performed outside an employment relationship (i.e., an agreement on the performance of work and an agreement on work activity) between themselves. This statutory regulation has two main reasons. The first reason is that relations between spouses should be equal. Under the Family Act, a man and a woman in marriage are to have equal rights and obligations. The relationship between an employer and an employee is a legal relationship in which one of the parties is in a superior position and the other in a subordinate position. The employee is obliged to perform work for the employer and to comply with his instructions, which would not be desirable in a mutual relationship between spouses in which they are to be equal to each other. The second reason for the prohibition of mutual employment between spouses is the existence of the community property of spouses (see above in Chapter III.a.). In the event that the spouses had not concluded an agreement on the reduction of their community property, the spouse-employer would use money from the community property of the spouses to pay wages to the spouse-employee. The payment to the spouse-employee would not change anything and this money would continue to remain part of the community property.

The situation is different if one of the spouses is a partner or a statutory body of a business company or a cooperative. In this case, the other spouse may become an employee of this business company or cooperative. The employment relationship in this case does not arise between the spouses themselves. On the employee’s side, one of the spouses stands, but on the employer’s side, the other spouse does not stand, but rather a legal person distinct from him or her. It is a question of how appropriate such a state is, having regard to the principle of equal status of spouses. In fact, in such a case, a situation may arise where one of the spouses will work in a position subordinate to the other spouse and will have to act in accordance with his or her instructions.

An employee in an employment relationship is obliged to perform work for the employer personally. However, if the employee’s relationship with the employer is based on an agreement on the performance of work or an agreement on work activity, the employee may perform work either personally or with the assistance of family members specified in the agreement. Therefore, if one of the spouses concludes with the employer one of the agreements on work performed outside an employment relationship and expressly agrees to this in that agreement, he or she may cooperate with his or her spouse in the performance of work for the employer.

If one of the spouses is engaged in business as a natural person, he or she cannot employ the other spouse, but nothing prevents the other spouse from cooperating with him or her in his or her business. For the cooperating spouse, this cooperation does not give rise to employment law entitlements, such as, for example, holiday for rest and recreation, time off work, etc. If the spouse thus acts as a cooperating person and her spouse regularly pays social security and health insurance premiums for her, all her entitlements in the area of pension and sickness insurance are preserved.

Death of the Employee

If an employee dies, his or her employment relationship terminates. Similarly, the death of the employee also terminates the employment relationship established on the basis of one of the agreements on work performed outside an employment relationship. The termination of the employment relationship is usually also associated with the extinction of the employee’s rights and obligations connected with it. These rights and obligations, with the exception of proprietary rights, are linked to the person of the employee and cannot pass to his or her legal successors. This means that the heirs of the deceased do not inherit, for example, the employee’s obligation to perform work for the employer, his or her right to take holiday for rest and recreation, etc. However, the situation is different with regard to the proprietary rights of the deceased employee. As a general rule, the pecuniary claims of the employee do not expire upon his or her death. The wage claims of the deceased employee up to three times his or her average monthly earnings pass successively directly to his or her spouse, children, and parents, if they lived with him or her at the time of his or her death in a common household. If there are no such persons, these claims become part of the estate. As regards the other proprietary rights of the employee, they pass to the heirs of the deceased employee. An exception to the general rule that the proprietary claims of the employee do not expire upon his or her death is made for pain and suffering and compensation for impairment of social advancement, which are linked exclusively to the person of the deceased employee.

Death of the Employee as a Result of a Work Accident or Occupational Disease

The existence of marriage is also of great significance if the employee dies as a result of a work accident or occupational disease. In such a case, the employer is obliged to provide compensation for the costs reasonably incurred in connection with the treatment of the deceased employee, compensation for reasonable costs connected with his or her funeral, compensation for the costs of maintenance of the survivors, one-off compensation for the survivors, and compensation for material damage. In this case, the employer does not have to address the issue of pain and suffering and compensation for impairment of social advancement because, as already stated, these are purely personal claims of the deceased employee which do not pass to the survivors or to the heirs.

The employer is obliged to reimburse the costs connected with the treatment and the funeral of the deceased employee to the person who incurred these costs, regardless of whether this person was the spouse, a close relative of the deceased employee, or a completely unrelated person. The difference lies only in the fact that, in the case of a funeral, the closest family members and members of the household of the deceased have, in addition to other persons, an entitlement to reimbursement of part of the costs of mourning attire and travel expenses. The employer is obliged to reimburse other costs connected with the funeral, which are in particular the costs charged by the funeral home, cemetery fees, and the costs of erecting a monument or plaque and maintaining the grave, to the person who incurred them.

The conclusion of marriage is also significant for the decision on compensation for the costs of maintenance of the survivors. This entitlement belongs only to those survivors towards whom the deceased employee had a maintenance obligation under the Family Act. It is inferred in case law that the scope of the costs of maintenance of the survivors should be determined by the scope of the maintenance that would be due to the entitled person under the Family Act. From this perspective, the existence or non-existence of marriage is of considerable significance. Whilst spouses have a mutual maintenance obligation under the Family Act, the scope of which is determined so that the material and cultural level of the spouses is, in principle, the same, there is no mutual maintenance obligation established in the Family Act in the relationship between a partner and his or her partner. The average earnings of the deceased employee and the widow’s (widower’s) pension to which the surviving spouse is entitled under the Pension Insurance Act are decisive for determining the amount of the surviving spouse’s claim. The entitlement to maintenance of the survivors is time-limited – it lasts at most until the deceased employee would have reached the age of 65. According to Section 261(2) of the Labour Code, claims for compensation for the costs of maintenance of the survivors are not subject to limitation.

The existence of marriage is also decisive for resolving the question of whether the death of the employee caused by a work accident or occupational disease gives rise to the survivors’ entitlement to one-off compensation. According to Section 200 of the Labour Code, one-off compensation is due to the spouse and a child who is entitled to an orphan’s pension. A child is entitled to this compensation in the amount of CZK 80,000; a spouse in the amount of CZK 50,000. In justified cases, this one-off compensation in a total amount of CZK 50,000 may also be provided to the parents of the deceased employee. The reason for this provision of the Labour Code is that, immediately after the loss of the breadwinner, the survivors are often in a situation where they need financial assistance. The Labour Code expressly requires here that the man and woman be spouses. Therefore, if the employee lived with his or her partner as partners, the other cannot be entitled to this one-off compensation.

The fact whether or not marriage was concluded is also relevant for the purposes of compensation for material damage because, according to the Labour Code, compensation for material damage is due to the heirs of the deceased employee. If no will was made, the spouse is, together with the descendants of the deceased employee, an heir classified in the first group. In contrast, the partner of the deceased may inherit only within the second inheritance group. However, heirs of the second inheritance group inherit only if the testator has no descendants. Therefore, if the testator had a living descendant (e.g., even a child in common with the surviving partner) and did not make a will, his or her surviving partner would inherit nothing.

In connection with the death of an employee caused by a work accident or occupational disease, I draw attention to the important provision of Section 205d of the Labour Code. This provision enshrines the institution of statutory insurance of the employer’s liability for damage in the event of the employee’s work accident or occupational disease. This is an institution ensuring enhanced protection of employees in the event of their work accident or occupational disease. According to this provision, employers employing at least one employee are, for the case of their liability for damage in the event of a work accident or occupational disease, insured by law (depending on the circumstances, either with Kooperativa, pojišťovna, a.s. or with Česká pojišťovna a.s.). The fact that this is statutory insurance means that no insurance contract is concluded and the insurance arises on the day the first employment relationship with the employer arises. On this day, the employer is also under an obligation to pay premiums for the employee.

This text was translated from Czech to English using an AI translator.