While it's still legally possible in certain cases to distinguish between blue-collar and white-collar workers in your pay policy, we don't recommend it. Find out why in this blog.
People often think that because of the so-called unitary statute, blue-collar and white-collar workers are completely equalized. But actually, that's not entirely true. Let's look at why we still make this distinction and how it translates to things like meal vouchers.
The unitary statute was introduced in 2014 to eliminate certain differences between blue-collar and white-collar workers, namely the notice period and the carenzdag (the first day of illness for blue-collar workers which, unlike white-collar workers, was not paid). Other things, such as vacation pay, remained unchanged.
The reason is actually quite simple. The Constitutional Court said in 2011 that the difference in treatment between blue-collar and white-collar workers, particularly with regard to notice periods and the carenzdag, was no longer acceptable. So the legislature had to intervene, but only with respect to those topics.
Regarding supplementary pensions, no new differences should be introduced between blue and white collar workers. Moreover, companies and sectors must equalize supplementary pension plans for blue and white collar workers. They have until 2030 to do so.
Apart from supplementary pensions, article 45 of the NSSO law also stipulates that no distinction may be made between employees within the same category with respect to benefits not covered by the normal NSSO scheme (e.g. meal vouchers, company cars, etc.). One would expect that the status of worker or employee would no longer be a permissible objective criterion for making this division into categories.
Against all odds, the NSSO recently ruled in an individual position that the status of worker or employee can still be a justified criterion.
Suppose one or more workers believe they are nevertheless entitled to meal vouchers of the same face value as for white-collar workers and the court agrees. In other words, the workers have a right to meal vouchers that have not been paid in full or at all.
However - and this feels somewhat counterintuitive - the unpaid meal vouchers are deemed to be wages, on which NSSO contributions are due. Since the employer will have to take care of both the overdue employer and employee contributions for NSSO and will have to pay default interest and contribution surcharges on top of that, the financial impact of this risk can quickly mount up.
Moreover, the NSSO has a direct interest in this by reviewing its position. This has happened before in the past, just think of the supplemental child benefit through cafeteria plans.
Regardless of the NSSO's position - which we believe is debatable - we recommend that companies gradually eliminate the distinction based on worker or employee status.
If there must still be a difference, let us base it on other, better criteria, such as the worker's position, and no longer on the status of worker or employee.
Ultimately, we want equal work to be rewarded equally, no matter what type of work is done. Moreover, as in the case of meal vouchers, you avoid risk with that.
While it may still be legally possible to distinguish between blue and white collar workers, it is no longer so appropriate in today's society. We encourage companies to phase out this distinction step by step and adopt fairer wage policies for all workers.
Leave your contact information and we will get back to you as soon as possible.
© hukaroi bv
