Povzetek: Avtorica ugotavlja, da je zakonodajalec ob sprejetju Zakona o javnih uslužbencih sledil cilju čim bolj enake pravne ureditve uslužbenskih razmerij v primerjavi z delovnimi razmerji delavcev v zasebnem sektorju po Zakonu o delovnih razmerjih. Cilj take ureditve je bil, da bi bilo delo javnih uslužbencev čim bolj učinkovito in uspešno ter da ne bi prihajalo do neenakega obravnavanja javnih uslužbencev glede na primerljivost položajev z delavci. Avtorica meni, da se je zakonodajalec oddaljil od tega cilja z določitvijo prepovedi uporabe načela in favorem laboratoris v korist delavca, ker delodajalec javnim uslužbencem ne sme priznavati večjega obsega pravic iz delovnega razmerja, kot so določene v predpisih in kolektivnih pogodbah, kar pa ne velja za zasebni sektor. Z uveljavitvijo Zakona o javnih uslužbencih sta položaja javnega uslužbenca in delavca postala bolj primerljiva prek instituta pogodbe o zaposlitvi, ki jo morajo za nastanek delovnega razmerja sklepati tudi uradniki. Avtorica nadalje ugotavlja, da je Ustavno sodišče presojalo ustavno dopustnost različne ureditve položaja delavca in javnega uslužbenca. Kaj je upoštevalo kot dopustno ali nedopustno delovno pravno normiranje, ki povzroči razlikovanje položaja javnega uslužbenca v primerjavi z delavcem, avtorica prikaže s posameznimi ustavnosodnimi presojami.

Ključne besede: delavec, javni uslužbenec, položaj, pravice, obveznosti, delovno razmerje, uslužbensko razmerje, pogodba o zaposlitvi, ustavnosodne presoje

Title: Comparability of Positions of Public Servants and Employees

Abstract: The author finds that, when adopting the Public Servants Act, the legislature pursued the objective of ensuring that the legal regulation of the employment relationships of public servants is as equal as possible to that of employment relationships of employees in the private sector under the Employment Relationships Act. The rationale for such a regulation was to ensure that the work of public servants is as effective and successful as possible, and that there is no unequal treatment of public servants in comparison with employees in the private sector. The author believes that, by imposing the prohibition of applying the principle in favorem laboratoris (i.e. to the benefit of the employee), the legislature distanced itself from that objective, as the employer may not recognise public servants a range of rights arising from the employment relationship that is greater than that determined in regulations and collective agreements, which, on the contrary, does not apply to the private sector. As the Public Servants Act entered into force, the positions of public servants on one hand and employees on the other became more comparable as a result of the institute of an employment contract, which public officials must also conclude in order to enter into an employment relationship. Furthermore, the author concludes that the Constitutional Court reviewed the constitutional admissibility of the difference in the regulation of the positions of employees and public servants. By presenting individual decisions adopted by the Constitutional Court, the author demonstrates which legislative actions the Constitutional Court considers admissible or inadmissible from the perspective of labour law; the latter being legislative actions that cause a differentiation between the positions of public servants and employees.

Keywords: employee, public servant, position, rights, obligations, employment relationship, employment relationship of a public servant, employment contract, Constitutional Court case law