en
How is the amount of payments determined during temporary substitution?
How is the amount of payments determined during temporary substitution?
One of the issues that concerns both employers and employees is the amount of payments related to the temporary substitution of an employee who is absent from the workplace for any reason by another employee. The topic is commented on by expert Altay Jafarov.
At first glance, this issue may seem very simple, but it has its own nuances. In practice, the absence of an employee from the workplace usually occurs for different reasons. For example, an employee may be:
- on maternity leave;
- on unpaid leave;
- on partially paid social leave;
- temporarily incapacitated for work;
- on annual leave;
- on study leave;
- or in other similar cases.
In practice, it is also quite common for one employee to perform the job functions of another vacant position. That means there are two possible situations here:
First case: Temporary substitution of an absent employee by another employee, and one employee performing the job functions of a vacant position. So, how are payments made in this case?
For this, we should look at Article 162 of the Labor Code. Paragraph 1 of that article states that if, in addition to performing his/her own job functions, an employee replaces another who is temporarily absent for certain reasons, the difference between the absent employee’s tariff (position) salary and the replacing employee’s salary is paid.
Paragraph 2 of the same article specifies that if the absent employee’s tariff (position) salary is equal to or lower than that of the replacing employee, then payment is made based on the wage mutually agreed between the employee and the employer.
From this article, it becomes clear that there are several scenarios concerning substitution:
- The absent employee’s salary is higher than the replacing employee’s salary;
- The absent employee’s salary is equal to the replacing employee’s salary;
- The absent employee’s salary is lower than the replacing employee’s salary.
Example: The deputy chief accountant of “AA” LLC earns 1,200 manats, while the chief accountant’s salary is 1,500 manats. If the chief accountant falls ill and his job functions are assigned to the deputy, the deputy will be paid an additional 300 manats until the chief accountant returns to work.
But how much should be paid to the replacing employee in the second and third cases? Can the replacing employee be paid 100% of the absent employee’s salary? To answer this, we need to take a more fundamental approach. According to paragraph 2 of Article 162 of the Labor Code, it is stated that payment is made as an *addition to the salary*. In other words, the article does not state that *a full salary* is paid.
According to Article 157 of the Labor Code:
1. Employees’ labor is paid based on time rates, piece rates, or other systems of remuneration. Payment can be made according to both individual and collective results of work.
2. To strengthen employees’ material interest in fulfilling contractual obligations, improving production efficiency, and enhancing work quality, bonuses may be applied, including annual performance bonuses and other forms of financial incentives.
3. The composition of wages includes the monthly tariff (position) salary, allowances, and bonuses.
4. The tariff (position) salary is the main part of wages, determined according to the complexity of the work, intensity of labor, and the employee’s level of qualification.
5. An allowance to the salary is an additional payment made to compensate or encourage the employee in relation to working conditions, added to the tariff (position) salary or wage.
6. A bonus is an incentive payment provided in the wage system to increase employees’ material interest in improving the quantity and quality of work.
From this article, it becomes clear that allowances are part of wages. Allowances are lower than the tariff (position) salary. As the name implies, this is *an addition to the salary*. Therefore, under paragraph 2 of Article 162, it would not be correct to pay the replacing employee the absent employee’s full salary (100%). So, how much additional payment should be made in this case?
For this, we must also look at another article of the Labor Code. According to paragraph 1 of Article 61, the performance of the job functions of an absent employee is permitted by mutual consent of the parties. In this case, wages are paid in accordance with Article 162 of the Code. Paragraph 2 of the same article specifies that the performance of job functions of a vacant position is permitted with the employee’s consent. If the employee performs both his/her own job functions and those of the vacant position simultaneously, he/she must be paid additional wages of *no less than 50%* of the salary (tariff) of the vacant position.
Thus, according to Article 61, wages for replacing an absent employee are paid based on Article 162, as explained above. However, in the case of performing the job functions of a vacant position, an additional wage of at least 50% must be paid. As we see, there are two concepts here: under Article 162, allowances to wages are determined and paid, while under Article 61, an *additional wage* is paid.
In conclusion, the following points can be drawn from the above:
- If the absent employee’s salary is higher than that of the replacing employee, the difference is paid.
- If the absent employee’s salary is equal to or lower than that of the replacing employee, additional payment is determined and paid by mutual agreement of the parties.
- The additional payment cannot be equal to the full amount of the absent employee’s salary.
- In the first case, only the difference between the two salaries is paid, meaning that in the second and third cases, mutual agreement must serve as the basis.
- In practice, employers usually set the additional payment at no more than 50%, but it can even reach 100%.
One of the issues that concerns both employers and employees is the amount of payments related to the temporary substitution of an employee who is absent from the workplace for any reason by another employee. The topic is commented on by expert Altay Jafarov.
At first glance, this issue may seem very simple, but it has its own nuances. In practice, the absence of an employee from the workplace usually occurs for different reasons. For example, an employee may be:
- on maternity leave;
- on unpaid leave;
- on partially paid social leave;
- temporarily incapacitated for work;
- on annual leave;
- on study leave;
- or in other similar cases.
In practice, it is also quite common for one employee to perform the job functions of another vacant position. That means there are two possible situations here:
First case: Temporary substitution of an absent employee by another employee, and one employee performing the job functions of a vacant position. So, how are payments made in this case?
For this, we should look at Article 162 of the Labor Code. Paragraph 1 of that article states that if, in addition to performing his/her own job functions, an employee replaces another who is temporarily absent for certain reasons, the difference between the absent employee’s tariff (position) salary and the replacing employee’s salary is paid.
Paragraph 2 of the same article specifies that if the absent employee’s tariff (position) salary is equal to or lower than that of the replacing employee, then payment is made based on the wage mutually agreed between the employee and the employer.
From this article, it becomes clear that there are several scenarios concerning substitution:
- The absent employee’s salary is higher than the replacing employee’s salary;
- The absent employee’s salary is equal to the replacing employee’s salary;
- The absent employee’s salary is lower than the replacing employee’s salary.
Example: The deputy chief accountant of “AA” LLC earns 1,200 manats, while the chief accountant’s salary is 1,500 manats. If the chief accountant falls ill and his job functions are assigned to the deputy, the deputy will be paid an additional 300 manats until the chief accountant returns to work.
But how much should be paid to the replacing employee in the second and third cases? Can the replacing employee be paid 100% of the absent employee’s salary? To answer this, we need to take a more fundamental approach. According to paragraph 2 of Article 162 of the Labor Code, it is stated that payment is made as an *addition to the salary*. In other words, the article does not state that *a full salary* is paid.
According to Article 157 of the Labor Code:
1. Employees’ labor is paid based on time rates, piece rates, or other systems of remuneration. Payment can be made according to both individual and collective results of work.
2. To strengthen employees’ material interest in fulfilling contractual obligations, improving production efficiency, and enhancing work quality, bonuses may be applied, including annual performance bonuses and other forms of financial incentives.
3. The composition of wages includes the monthly tariff (position) salary, allowances, and bonuses.
4. The tariff (position) salary is the main part of wages, determined according to the complexity of the work, intensity of labor, and the employee’s level of qualification.
5. An allowance to the salary is an additional payment made to compensate or encourage the employee in relation to working conditions, added to the tariff (position) salary or wage.
6. A bonus is an incentive payment provided in the wage system to increase employees’ material interest in improving the quantity and quality of work.
From this article, it becomes clear that allowances are part of wages. Allowances are lower than the tariff (position) salary. As the name implies, this is *an addition to the salary*. Therefore, under paragraph 2 of Article 162, it would not be correct to pay the replacing employee the absent employee’s full salary (100%). So, how much additional payment should be made in this case?
For this, we must also look at another article of the Labor Code. According to paragraph 1 of Article 61, the performance of the job functions of an absent employee is permitted by mutual consent of the parties. In this case, wages are paid in accordance with Article 162 of the Code. Paragraph 2 of the same article specifies that the performance of job functions of a vacant position is permitted with the employee’s consent. If the employee performs both his/her own job functions and those of the vacant position simultaneously, he/she must be paid additional wages of *no less than 50%* of the salary (tariff) of the vacant position.
Thus, according to Article 61, wages for replacing an absent employee are paid based on Article 162, as explained above. However, in the case of performing the job functions of a vacant position, an additional wage of at least 50% must be paid. As we see, there are two concepts here: under Article 162, allowances to wages are determined and paid, while under Article 61, an *additional wage* is paid.
In conclusion, the following points can be drawn from the above:
- If the absent employee’s salary is higher than that of the replacing employee, the difference is paid.
- If the absent employee’s salary is equal to or lower than that of the replacing employee, additional payment is determined and paid by mutual agreement of the parties.
- The additional payment cannot be equal to the full amount of the absent employee’s salary.
- In the first case, only the difference between the two salaries is paid, meaning that in the second and third cases, mutual agreement must serve as the basis.
- In practice, employers usually set the additional payment at no more than 50%, but it can even reach 100%.