Bonus paying may draw the manager to the court
Krisnade Bhundhoombhoad
It is a popular practice among many establishments to reward their staff when good business performance is confirmed by a periodic financial statement. It is a kind of motivation that both the management and staff share advantages. Certain establishments carefully form standard practice so that everyone: manager, supervisor and employee, understands clearly and adhere to the rules. Some executives prefer to keep the rules flexible to suit their policy; they believe that it is a prerogative that should not be argued. Bonus is never enforced by any labour law; so it is possible not to be written in a company rule. Practice may be observed differently whenever appropriated. The issue becomes debatable how the rule is properly set for smooth practice and how big the amount of bonus is. Negligence may cause difficulty and possibly force the manager to appear in the court as a defendant. Dika verdicts may be a good guideline of proper practice when you think about paying bonus. Dika Verdict No. 1448-1774/2541 The company working regulations specified the amount of bonus payable to each employee equal to 100 percent of base salary not including “percent pay” (commission). Paying bonus to employee, the employer added “cost of living allowance” in base salary for calculation regularly. Such practice showed that the employer did not strictly observe the regulation “based on only basic salary in calculation”. Paying bonus by including cost of living allowance in calculation regularly then became a working condition agreement. The employer, not adding cost of living allowance into calculation of bonus, therefore, committed illegally violation against the working condition agreement. It was guilty. Dika Verdict No. 8003/2543 The working regulations of the employer stated only that bonus was to be paid to staff twice a year, in June and December periods. The amount of bonus was not clearly mentioned. Earlier, the employer paid bonus to each staff equal to 4.5 times of salary repeatedly (in the year 2534 to 2539 the operation yielded profits). It was not the working conditions that bound the employer to pay bonus at the same rate forever. As the employer paid bonus to each employee in 2541 at the rate equal to one month of salary (in the year 2540-2541 the business performance became lost); such doing already conformed with the working regulations of the employer. The defendant was sentenced not guilty. Should bonus is paid repeatedly, bonus paying possibly becomes working condition agreement that the employer has to keep doing. Once the rule has been set, practice must agree with the rule. Anyhow continuous doing makes the rule, no matter what existing text is. Keeping this in mind, the manager can avoid to be present at the court as a defendant without difficulty.
ที่มา : Business Management Co.,Ltd.