In a recent judgment, Supreme Court case no. Rev1 33/24 of 15 May 2025, the Court took the position that an employee, following a lawful amendment of the agreed working conditions by way of an annex to the employment agreement providing for part-time work, has no legal grounds to request a court determination of the existence of full-time employment for as long as such annex produces legal effect.
This position is particularly noteworthy and significant given that the Labor Law explicitly recognizes such a situation only in the context of employment measures applied in cases of redundancy, which previously raised a justified question as to whether such a change in working conditions is permissible under ordinary circumstances.
Normative framework
The Labor Law regulates the possibility of establishing an employment relationship with part-time working hours, while further specifying the relevant working regimes. By their nature, employees working under either regime exercise certain rights proportionally to the time spent at work.
With regard to the conclusion of an annex to an employment agreement, the law prescribes specific cases in which an employer may offer an employee a change to the agreed working conditions, while also allowing for the conclusion of an annex in other cases provided for by law, a general act, or the employment agreement.
Factual background
In this case, the employee initially entered into an employment with full-time working hours but, during the course of employment, concluded several annexes to the employment agreement stipulating part-time work, with a precisely defined daily and weekly number of working hours.
Subsequently, the employee initiated an employment dispute seeking a declaration of nullity of the annexes and requested that the court determine the existence of an employment relationship with full-time working hours.
Court’s position
While the court of first instance fully upheld the employee’s claim, the court of second instance dismissed the employee’s lawsuit as time-barred in the part relating to the request for a declaration of nullity of several annexes to the employment agreement, finding that they produce legal effect. Consequently, the claim seeking a determination of the existence of full-time employment was also rejected, which was confirmed by the Supreme Court, holding that the appellate court correctly applied substantive law and that the employee’s revision was unfounded.
Namely, the Supreme Court found that the parties had concluded a lawful annex to the employment agreement amending the agreed working conditions, whereby the employee continued employment with the employer for an indefinite period under part-time working hours. As long as the annexes to the employment agreement produce legal effect, there is no legal basis for a court determination of full-time employment, since the employee, pursuant to the valid annexes, has an employment relationship with part-time working hours.
Conclusion
As long as a lawful annex to the employment agreement providing for part-time work is in force, the employee has no grounds to seek a court determination of the existence of full-time employment, nor the rights arising from such full-time work.
This position of judicial practice further confirms that a transition from full-time to part-time work is legally permissible and lawful if implemented through an annex to the employment agreement in accordance with the law, and that such an amendment produces legal effect until it is validly challenged.
In this regard, it should be borne in mind that this possibility should be explicitly regulated in the employer’s internal acts, given that there is no express statutory basis for concluding an annex to an employment agreement that would result in a change of the working regime from full-time to part-time work.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Should you require additional information, please feel free to contact us.
Author:
Borinka Dobrnjac, Senior Associate,
borinka.dobrnjac@prlegal.rs