The Government intends to introduce into general labor law in public functions that the vacation periods most desired by workers are “prorated” (distributed proportionally) so that employees benefit (or suffer) “alternatively” depending on the periods. of vacations “enjoyed in the previous two years”, as already provided for in the Labor Code. The Federation of Public Administration Unions (Fesap) affirms that this is already a recurring practice among public sector managers, but is waiting for this Tuesday’s meeting with the Secretary of State for Public Administrations to find out in more detail. the Government’s intention with the legislature’s request. authorization, which will also address sickness, strike and mobility regimes.

The Minister of Finance, Joaquim Miranda Sarmento, had already announced in Parliament that the Executive asked the parties that support it to present a modification proposal, in the area of ​​the State Budget, that makes “more explicit what the Government wants with a legislative amendment.” And he guaranteed that the changes, which he calls “small adjustments to the law,” are all beneficial for workers “and will be the result of dialogue with the unions.”

Regarding the right to vacations, the AD proposal that entered Parliament establishes that “the Government is authorized to review article 126 of the General Law of Labor in the Public Service [sobre o direito a férias]approved by Law 35/2014, of June 20, in relation to the rules for sharing vacations between workers who want the same period“, indicates the proposal.

The objective is to “increase human resource management capabilities, particularly with regard to the management and distribution of vacation periods.” in the periods most desired by workers” and “increase the incidence period for prorationas provided for in number 6 of article 241 of the Labor Code, applicable by reference to article 126 of the General Law of Labor in the Public Service, approved by Law 35/2014, of June 20.”

The most specific that the proposal is, therefore, is to point out number six of article 241 of the Labor Code, which establishes that “when scheduling vacations, the most desired periods must be prorated, whenever possible, benefiting alternatively workers according to the periods enjoyed in the previous two years.” That is, in the private sector the rule is (or should be) that when scheduling vacations in periods of greater demand, the distribution that was made in the two previous years is taken into account, so that the same workers do not always benefit ( or harmed).

Currently, the general labor legislation in public functions does not provide for this rule in the article on the right to vacation. But José Abraão, leader of Fesap, tells the Observer that it is already a recurring practice and he does not agree with making a change “to diplomacy.” “I don’t think it makes sense to do this type of distribution by diploma when the services and those responsible for the services approve the templates taking this availability into account,” he says.

José Abraão says that it is “a common practice because the services do not close the door and that is why there are workers who take vacations in June or August and in order not to close the door the assignment has already been made, some leave now and others later. This is to somehow eliminate or create conditions so that eventually there can be even more arbitrariness,” he considers, adding that “it is one of those issues in which, many times, the more rights that are regulated, the more likely they are to be regulated.” ”. be conditioned.”

The Labor Code also currently provides that couples (spouses, civil unions or common economy) who work in the same company “have the right to take vacations for the same period, unless there is serious harm to the company,” but it is not clear . Since the drafting of the AD proposal, it is intended to transpose this section also to the public service. On the other hand, there is no rule that gives priority to workers with children, although the issue is frequently raised within the workplace.

The request for legislative authorization has been harshly criticized by opposition parties, who complain about the lack of transparency of the Government, which has said that the changes will be “administrative”. Meetings are planned for this Tuesday with the three general career unions, Fesap, STE and Frente Comum, to discuss the issue. Fesap now hopes to know the text of the diplomas with the different changes.

The changes to the public service rules will be “administrative” and will cover “strike communication” or “improvement” of the SIADAP

The AD proposal will be subject to a vote in the specialty, at the level of the OE, but without guaranteed approval. The Bloc has already expressed its intention to vote against what it called a “blank check.” José Soeiro, from the Bloco de Esquerda, tells the Observer that, although he has not yet analyzed the AD proposal, the parliamentary group is against the method chosen by the Executive: legislative authorization. “We understand that the law on work in public functions, if it were changed, would have to be changed in the RA,” he says.

For the PS, Alexandra Leitão has already admitted that the request for legislative authorization could even be unconstitutional. “In terms of Public Administration, and the way in which this legislative authorization is placed, I have doubts about its constitutionality because it is a blank check. And even the legislative authorizations contained in the OE law cannot be blank checks,” the parliamentary leader argued during the Budget discussion (before AD advanced the proposal by providing more information on the scope of the changes). Al Observador indicated that they have not yet analyzed the AD proposal or decided the direction of the vote.

José Abraão, from Fesap, for his part, criticizes that the State Budget bill includes requests for legislative authorization. These are the so-called “budget gentlemen”, who were criticized by the Budget Support Technical Unit (UTAO) in its analysis of the Budget proposal.

Sick leave and strike

The request for legislative authorization focuses on other sensitive issues, such as diseases and strikes. Regarding the sickness regime, the proposal allows the Government to review the articles of the employment law in public functions on the justification of the illness and the means of proof for workers covered by the convergent social protection regime, that is, those who deduct from Caixa General Retirement Plan (CGA). One of the objectives is to “harmonize procedural rules relating to the justification of illness and means of proof between social protection regimes.”

The AD proposal also aims to give the Government the freedom to expand the services competent to issue certificates of temporary work incapacity for workers under the convergent social protection regime, as well as increase the limits of validity of the certificates in certain more serious pathologies. . /or prolonged, in terms “identical” to what happens in Social Security.

José Abraão admits that the change could make the convergent regime equal to that of Social Security in terms of sick leave periods. In February it was reported that the extension from 30 to 90 days of the initial period of sick leave for patients with cancer, ischemic heart disease or stroke was coming into force, but only for workers integrated into the general Social Security regime, excluding beneficiaries that are discounted by the CGA, since the process was diverted due to the fall of António Costa’s government. The Observer questioned the Government about the intention behind the overall planned change in the AD proposal, but is still awaiting a response.

The fall of the Government prevented extending the terms of medical leave for ADSE users

Regarding the strike, the proposal gives the Government the freedom to legislate on the “entities to which the prior notice of a strike must be communicated and the means by which the prior notice of a strike must be communicated.” This is article 396 of the general law on labor in the public service, which already requires prior notice to the public employer, the responsible member of the government and other persons with jurisdiction in the area of ​​supervision, “by appropriate means, specifically in writing or through the media.”

The AD only establishes that the change will consist of requiring “communication in writing, preferably by electronic means.” And he adds: “The need to know in a timely manner the communication of advance notices of strikes that involve essential social needs is fundamental for the promotion of the legally provided mechanisms with a view to defining the minimum services and the means necessary to guarantee them during the strike. ”.

Changes are also proposed in terms of mobility, including in terms of the “amount per incidence of discounts” within the scope of the legal regime for transfers of public interest.