In Romanian labor law, compliance no longer means just having internal policies in writing. Court practice and regulatory inspections increasingly show that employers must demonstrate effective enforcement of internal rules and genuine respect for employee rights.
In recent years, compliance with Romanian labor law has become a strategic concern for employers. Beyond the formal existence of internal regulations or corporate policies, courts and supervisory authorities are increasingly scrutinizing how these rules are applied in practice.
Experience with labor disputes shows that many conflicts arise precisely from the discrepancy between the formal rules of the organization and the actual way in which they are implemented in day-to-day operations. In this context, the focus is shifting from the existence of internal documents to their effective application and actual compliance with the rights of employees enshrined in labor legislation.
- Internal policies and limits in labor law
According to Article 241 of the Labor Code (Law No. 53/2003), internal regulations are the instrument through which the employer establishes the rules regarding work discipline, disciplinary procedures, and standards of conduct applicable at the unit level.
Article 242 establishes the minimum mandatory content of internal regulations, while Article 38 enshrines the principle that employees cannot waive their rights recognized by law, either by agreement between the parties or through internal policies.
In this context, internal policies cannot derogate from the mandatory rules of labor law and cannot be used to restrict the legal rights of employees.
In practice, courts examine not only the existence of internal regulations, but also how they are actually applied within the organization. Consistent case law shows that the mere existence of an internal policy cannot justify the violation of employees' legal rights and does not exempt the employer from liability for non-compliance with the procedures provided for by law.
The courts also consistently verify whether the internal regulations have been effectively brought to the attention of employees, in accordance with Article 243 of the Labor Code.
- Disciplinary proceedings in labor law: formalism versus procedural guarantees
Articles 247–252 of the Labor Code regulate the disciplinary liability of employees and establish the mandatory nature of preliminary disciplinary investigations.
Experience with labor disputes shows that a significant number of disciplinary sanctions are overturned not because the alleged offense did not occur, but because the procedural guarantees provided by law were not respected.
The High Court of Cassation and Justice has consistently ruled that disciplinary investigations cannot be purely formal. The employee's right to defense must be effective, not illusory, and the sanction imposed must comply with the principle of proportionality.
In these circumstances, the existence of an internal disciplinary procedure is not sufficient if it is not strictly complied with, including in terms of summoning the employee, conducting the hearing, and justifying the sanction.
From the employers' perspective, these issues can become decisive in the event of a labor dispute.
- Preventing and combating harassment in the workplace
The employer's obligation to prevent and combat harassment in the workplace is regulated by both the Labor Code and Law No. 202/2002 on equal opportunities and treatment between women and men. In addition, Government Decision No. 970/2023 strengthened employers' obligations regarding the implementation of internal procedures for preventing and investigating harassment.
In practice, simply adopting an anti-harassment policy is not enough. The courts examine whether the employer has effectively intervened in the reported situations and whether the internal investigations have been conducted impartially and diligently.
The lack of a real investigation or the employer's failure to intervene may result in the employer's liability, being classified as its own fault.
Several court decisions have held that the employer may be liable not only for acts of harassment committed by employees, but also for tolerating a hostile work environment.
- Compliance and regulation of working time
Regulation of working time and weekly rest (Articles 111–137 of the Labor Code) frequently generates risks of non-compliance, particularly in the context of hybrid work and telework.
In practice, courts consistently hold that the existence of an internal policy on working hours is not sufficient. The employer must demonstrate that working time is effectively monitored.
Overtime can also be proven by any means of evidence admissible by law, and courts frequently penalize discrepancies between the "official" schedule and the actual schedule practiced in the organization.
In the absence of clear mechanisms for monitoring working time, employers may face disputes over the payment of overtime or compliance with statutory rest periods.
- Compliance in labor law as a continuous process
From a practical perspective, compliance with labor law typically involves:
- regular auditing of labor documentation;
- assessment of internal practices in relation to relevant legislation and case law;
- adaptation of internal procedures to legislative changes and developments in court practice.
Both the Labor Inspectorate and the courts are increasingly scrutinizing the consistency between internal rules and how they are applied in practice.
A lack of consistency can result in administrative penalties, but also in costly litigation for employers.
In this context, the regular assessment of internal procedures and human resources practices becomes an essential tool for maintaining compliance with labor law.
- The role of lawyers in ensuring compliance with labor law
In this context, the role of a lawyer specialized in labor law goes beyond representation in litigation.
Increasingly, they are becoming strategic advisors to employers, involved in:
- assessing management decisions from a legal risk perspective;
- preventing labor disputes;
- developing functional internal procedures that comply with applicable legislation.
Legislative and jurisprudential developments confirm a clear trend: formal compliance is no longer sufficient. Internal policies must be accompanied by consistent enforcement, effective training, and genuine respect for employee rights.
In an increasingly demanding legal climate, organizations that treat compliance as an ongoing process—rather than a simple set of documents—are the ones that succeed in significantly reducing legal and reputational risks.
For employers, the difference between a formal internal policy and an effectively implemented procedure can be decisive in court or before regulatory authorities.