Landmark Supreme Court ruling on the principle of equal treatment and ensuring comparable conditions for temporary assigned employees and agency employees
In labour law practice, there has long been debate over what constitutes the “working and wage conditions” of an employee who is temporarily assigned to another employer. In accordance with Section 43a of the Labour Code, the working and wage conditions of an employee temporarily assigned to another employer must not be worse than those of a comparable employee of that employer. The same applies to agency employment (Section 309(5) of the Labour Code).
Comparable conditions vs. company benefits
The law does not specify what falls under “wage conditions”, in particular whether employee benefits are included. In practice, meal vouchers, pension contributions, mobile phone tariffs and other “informal” benefits often remained out of reach for assigned employees, and employers effectively circumvented the principle of equal treatment.
To remove this uncertainty, the General Inspector of the State Labour Inspection Office issued Methodological Instruction No. 2/2016, which was updated last year under No. 5/2025. The guideline contains a list of benefits including assessment of whether these must also be provided to assigned employees. The Instruction is based on the conclusion that only those benefits that are expressly regulated by labour law regulations fall under wage conditions.
Supreme Court decision 21 Cdo 351/2024: supplementary pension insurance contribution
A new Supreme Court decision of 14 January 2026 (21 Cdo 351/2024) changes these rules and strengthens the protection of assigned employees. In the case in question, an employee objected that he was receiving a lower supplementary pension insurance contribution than comparable employees of the employer to whom he was assigned. The lower courts rejected his claim on the grounds that this benefit was not part of the working and wage conditions. This conclusion was ultimately in line with the above-mentioned Methodological Instruction, according to which contributions to life insurance, pension insurance, pension savings and long-term investment products do not fall under these conditions (they are not benefits expressly regulated by labour law).
However, the Supreme Court rejected this rather formalistic interpretation. It emphasized that the decisive factor is not whether the benefit is expressly mentioned in the Labour Code, but whether it is a monetary benefit related to the performance of work that the user provides to its employees. If so, it must also be provided to the assigned employee.
Impact on practice
The Supreme Court’s decision is crucial for employers who use temporary assignment or agency employment. Employers must ensure that assigned employees receive not only comparable wages, but also all other benefits that the receiving employer or user provides to its permanent employees, regardless of whether these benefits are regulated by the Labour Code or not.
The decision strengthens the protection of temporarily assigned employees, eliminates unequal treatment in the area of remuneration, and thus prevents the abuse of temporary assignments to exploit cheap labour.
Employers must therefore, in cooperation with host employers, carefully evaluate all benefits provided by the host employer and ensure that they are provided to the same extent to temporarily assigned employees. The same applies to employment agencies, which must obtain accurate information from the users of their employees.
—
If you have any questions about this topic, please reach out to your contact person in our office or the authors of this article – Dana Provázková and Michal Zahradník.
This document is a general communication and should not be regarded as legal advice on any specific matter.
