1. The subject of the dispute is the employee’s appeal against the orders to change essential working conditions, namely the reduction of the official salary, and the request to restore the previous conditions and recover the unpaid salary.
2. The court of first instance partially satisfied the claim, canceling the orders to change working conditions and obliging the restoration of previous conditions, since the defendant did not prove the existence of changes in the organization of production that would justify the change in the tariff category. The appellate court overturned this decision, considering that there were changes in the organization of production, namely bringing the staffing table in line with the recommendations of the audit report, and the employee was timely notified of the change in the terms of remuneration in accordance with the legislation of martial law. The Supreme Court did not agree with the appellate court, pointing out that the employee was notified of the change in working conditions after these changes had been implemented, and the staffing table, on the basis of which the order to change working conditions was issued, was subsequently declared invalid. At the same time, the Supreme Court referred to its previous position that a change in essential working conditions can be recognized as lawful only if changes in the organization of production are proven.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance regarding the cancellation of orders to change working conditions and the obligation to restore previous conditions.
