Transfer of Employees in Moldova in Case of Business Transfers: Pitfalls

Moldovan legislation provides for two possibilities of business transfer: (i) share deal and (ii) asset deal by means of a sale purchase agreement having as object an enterprise as a sole asset complex (complex patrimonial unic; ESAC). While in the first case no major labour issues arise (mainly given that the employer remains unchanged), when using the second option the involved parties must take into consideration a series of legal aspects to avoid commonly committed mistakes.

General aspects

Under the Moldovan Labour Code (Labour Code), trans­fer of employ­ees is per­formed either by amend­ing indi­vid­ual labour agree­ments con­clud­ed with the employ­ees ((i) trans­fer of an employ­ee to a new job with a same employ­er or (ii) trans­fer with the employ­er to a new city) or by con­clud­ing anoth­er indi­vid­ual labour agree­ment (if the trans­fer occurs to a new employ­er). Both are sub­ject to pre­lim­i­nary writ­ten con­sent by involved employ­ees (Arti­cle 74(1) Labour Code).

In light of the above norm, employ­ees employed with an ESAC will enjoy the right to refuse the trans­fer. In prac­tice, such for­mal­i­ty may con­sti­tute a deal-break­er or influ­ence the val­ue of the sold ESAC. Fur­ther­more, in cas­es where a sell­er refus­es to pro­cure the employ­ees’ due con­sent for trans­fer, it will like­ly lead to an adjust­ment of the pur­chase price.

Pitfall of procuring employees’ prior consent

Should there be no due con­sent by the employ­ees, no labour trans­fer to the new employ­er can hap­pen. If there is no trans­fer, the employ­ees stay in a labour rela­tion­ship with the sell­er (trans­fer­or). Hence, the pur­chas­er (trans­fer­ee) may not like such an approach since the ESAC remains with­out, for exam­ple, skilled labour.

Fur­ther, the sit­u­a­tion gets even more com­pli­cat­ed if no employ­ees’ con­sent is in place, since a trans­fer­or may not ter­mi­nate the indi­vid­ual labour agree­ments of its employ­ees with­out cause. The grounds upon which a trans­fer­or is enti­tled to dis­miss its employ­ees are exhaus­tive and are list­ed in Arti­cle 86 Labour Code. Note that in Moldo­va an employ­er may not ter­mi­nate indi­vid­ual labour agree­ments by uni­lat­er­al noti­fi­ca­tions (with minor excep­tions, eg, top man­age­ment).

Solu­tions for a trans­fer­or who could not obtain con­sent of its employ­ees to be trans­ferred com­mon­ly involve either staff redun­dan­cies (Arti­cle 86(1) c) Labour Code) or even liq­ui­da­tion of the trans­fer­or (Arti­cle 86(1) b) Labour Code). It should be not­ed that the Moldovan Insol­ven­cy Act pro­hibits dis­missal of employ­ees as a result of sale of an ESAC of an insol­vent trans­fer­or (Arti­cle 95(2)).

Pitfall of collective bargaining convention(s)/agreement(s)

The aspect with col­lec­tive bar­gain­ing agreement(s) in place should be sep­a­rate­ly assessed while affect­ing ESAC asset deals. Gen­er­al­ly, rights and oblig­a­tions aris­ing out of col­lec­tive bar­gain­ing con­ven­tions (con­ven­tii colec­tive) at a nation­al or branch lev­el will not auto­mat­i­cal­ly pass from a trans­fer­or to a trans­fer­ee as a result of a busi­ness trans­fer, unless: (i) the trans­fer­ee also con­clud­ed or adhered to a respec­tive col­lec­tive bar­gain­ing con­ven­tion; (ii) the employ­ees to be trans­ferred from a trans­fer­or to a trans­fer­ee con­clud­ed or adhered to a respec­tive col­lec­tive bar­gain­ing con­ven­tion by means of their rep­re­sen­ta­tives; or (iii) the trans­fer­ee is a part of an employ­ers’ asso­ci­a­tion that con­clud­ed a col­lec­tive bar­gain­ing con­ven­tion (Arti­cle 38 Labour Code). The issue with col­lec­tive bar­gain­ing agree­ments at a unit / sub-unit lev­el and their pass­ing to the trans­fer­ee is more com­pli­cat­ed and requires an indi­vid­ual approach.

In con­clu­sion trans­fer­ees are high­ly rec­om­mend­ed to indi­vid­u­al­ly assess all legal aspects of the trans­fer of col­lec­tive bar­gain­ing convention(s)/agreement(s) and, if appro­pri­ate, address such in the ESAC sale pur­chase agree­ment.


Under gen­er­al rules of law, the trans­fer­or is liable for any dam­ages caused to its employ­ees as a result of an ille­gal trans­fer of such to a trans­fer­ee. Should a trans­fer be held ille­gal, besides being oblig­ed to re-employ the ille­gal­ly trans­ferred employ­ees (Arti­cle 90 Labour Code), a trans­fer­or must also repay any mate­r­i­al and moral dam­ages caused, and imme­di­ate­ly pay out­stand­ing salaries.

The gen­er­al lim­i­ta­tion peri­od inside which an employ­ee can raise claims to be re-employed equals three months as of the day the employ­ee knew or should have known about the ille­gal dis­missal (Arti­cle 355(1) a) Labour Code). Fur­ther, the lim­i­ta­tion peri­od for mate­r­i­al claims is three years as of the day the employ­ee knew or should have known about the infringed right(s) (Arti­cle 355(1) b) Labour Code).

In time of global crisis, ESAC asset deals are becoming more and more popular. Especially given that purchasers can get a good price from a company in insolvency. Still all parties should bear in mind that the labour aspect (besides other legal issues) should be carefully addressed to avoid unpleasant surprises.

roadmap 14
schoenherr attorneys at law / www.schoenherr.eu