Employment law as a shield: why the imbalance of power between employer and employee calls for judicial guard

In theory, an employment contract is an agreement of the will of two parties. In practice, it is a relationship in which one side holds the resources and the other its livelihood. As a lawyer, I see every day that employment disputes are not only about money, but about restoring dignity and fairness in a system that naturally leans in favour of capital.

International standards: the ILO and the European Social Charter

Employment law is not a local bubble. The foundations of our protection rest on the conventions of the International Labour Organization (ILO) and the European Social Charter. These instruments proclaim that labour is not a commodity.

ILO Convention No. 132 clearly sets the standard of paid annual leave as a fundamental right that cannot be replaced by money, except in one specific case: the termination of employment.

European standards require that an employee must not suffer harm because they worked instead of resting. This is a principle that our courts must follow without reservation.

The Labour Law: mandatory rules versus arbitrariness

The Serbian Labour Law (Article 76) is unequivocal: “Upon termination of employment, the employer is obliged to pay an employee who has not used their annual leave monetary compensation in lieu of annual leave.”

Yet in practice we encounter employers' attempts to ignore this obligation, citing administrative oversights or, more often, the tacit expectation that the employee “will not make trouble”. As legal representatives, we point out that employment-law rules are mandatory. They do not depend on the employer's goodwill; this compensation is the legal consequence of failing to organise work in a way that would have allowed the employee to rest.

The imbalance of power: why is the employee the “weaker party”?

Legal doctrine recognises the employee as the economically and socially weaker party. The employer owns the means of work, legal teams and the ability to dictate terms. Employees often accept unfavourable conditions out of fear for their livelihood.

That is precisely why judicial protection serves as a corrective. When we file a lawsuit for unpaid compensation for annual leave, we are not merely claiming RSD 111,281.78 (as in the case of my client, a finance manager); we are asking the court to confirm that the deadlines under Article 186 of the Labour Law are not recommendations but obligations. Every day of delay triggers statutory default interest, a fair sanction for unjustifiably withholding someone else's money.

Precise calculation: the mathematics of justice

A lawyer's work in employment disputes requires mathematical precision. It is not enough to claim “some compensation”. As in our submissions, one must calculate precisely:

They do not depend on the employer's goodwill; this compensation is the legal consequence of failing to organise work in a way that would have allowed the employee to rest.

Slaviša Cincarević

the average salary over the previous three months,

the number of working days of unused leave in proportion to the time spent at work,

the daily value of the compensation.

Only an exact approach prevents the employer from using a strategy of “general denial” in the dispute.

Recommendations and prevention: how to protect your rights?

As a lawyer who represents and protects the interests of employees, I advise the following steps before matters reach the courtroom:

Keep your documents: store your employment contract, annual-leave decisions and payslips in digital form. They are your strongest evidence.

Track the proportional share: if your employment ends in the middle of the year, you are entitled to a proportional share of leave (usually about 1.66 days per month of work). Do not let anyone convince you that you “have not acquired the right”.

Deadlines are key: the deadline for paying all amounts owed upon termination of employment is 30 days. After that, the employer is in default and owes you interest.

Do not sign “blank” agreements: employees are often presented with termination agreements stating that they “have no further claims against the employer”. Such a clause can cost you judicial protection. Consult a lawyer before signing anything.

Conclusion

Employment law is not just a set of articles; it is a living struggle for fair play in capitalism. Every successful lawsuit sends a message to employers that the law must be respected and that an employee's professional integrity has no price.

This text expresses the author's professional opinion and does not constitute legal advice for a specific case.