Georgia’s two major Labour Code reforms — in 2013 and 2020 — were both shaped by intense lobbying from business associations. Employers sought flexibility on working time, termination and overtime; unions and civil society sought stronger protections and enforcement. This analysis reviews what employers’ organisations asked for, what changed in the final laws, and what the debate tells us about the next round of reform. (An earlier version of this page attributed a recent reform call to a specific business association; GILS could not verify that statement and has replaced it with documented positions.)
Key Findings
- In April 2013, AmCham Georgia and ICC Georgia issued statements urging changes to the draft Labour Code, including flexibility to contract above 40 hours by mutual agreement and to retain unilateral termination with notice and compensation (Civil.ge, 2013). The government revised overtime provisions in response.
- In 2020, the Business Association of Georgia (BAG) was the largest and most vocal opponent of the reform package (OC Media, 2020).
- Civil society organisations reported in July 2020 that provisions on an explicit overtime cap, the minimum wage and solidarity strikes had been removed from the package during committee review (Social Justice Center and other signatories, 2020; OC Media, 2020).
- The final 2020 reform, adopted 82–0 on 29 September 2020, closed a loophole that had allowed employers to stretch the working week from 40 to 48 hours without overtime pay, and required employee consent for overtime (OC Media, 2020; Civil.ge, 2020).
1. Introduction
Labour law reform always balances the interests of employers and workers. In Georgia, the government that introduced the 2013 amendments described the 2006 Labour Code as giving employees almost no rights and employers almost all of them (Civil.ge, 2013). This analysis looks at what employers asked for in the two subsequent reform rounds and how far they succeeded.
2. What Employers Asked For
| Year | Organisation | Position | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2013 | AmCham Georgia | Allow contracts above 40 hours a week by mutual agreement with equivalent rest; provision for shift work and flexible schedules | Civil.ge (2013) |
| 2013 | ICC Georgia | Keep employers’ right to terminate contracts unilaterally with fair notice and compensation | Civil.ge (2013) |
| 2020 | Business Association of Georgia (BAG) | Most vocal opponent of the reform package; argued it would set back the economy and that EU approximation should allow exceptions | OC Media (2020) |
| 2020 | Business Ombudsman | Called the revised package “more balanced” but potentially “tough” for business | OC Media (2020) |
3. What Changed
2013: a first rebalancing
The 2013 amendments, passed at first reading by 75 votes, followed six months of consultations with unions, civil society, business and the ILO. The Deputy Justice Minister stated that overtime payment provisions were revised to address business concerns (Civil.ge, 2013). The reform also introduced procedures for collective disputes.
2020: closing the working-time loophole
The 2020 package introduced rules on overtime pay, night work, weekly rest and breaks, equal pay, paternity leave and internships, and was accompanied by the law giving the Labour Inspection Service a full mandate. It closed the loophole that had allowed many employers to extend the week from 40 to 48 hours without overtime pay (OC Media, 2020; Civil.ge, 2020). But civil society organisations reported that an explicit overtime cap and provisions on the minimum wage and solidarity strikes had been dropped (Social Justice Center and other signatories, 2020; IndustriALL, 2020).
4. Discussion
The employers’ case
Business associations have argued that strict rules on working time, termination and overtime raise costs, reduce flexibility and could increase unemployment or informality. These concerns carry weight in an economy dominated by small firms with thin margins, and the Business Ombudsman’s view that the 2020 package was “tough” for business reflects that.
The workers’ case
Unions and civil society argue that flexibility without protection produced long hours, unpaid overtime and weak enforcement, and that Georgia’s EU commitments require approximation to European standards. The removal of the minimum wage and overtime cap provisions in 2020 left two central protections unresolved.
What it means for the next round
Both reform rounds show the same pattern: change driven by EU association commitments, contested by business, and settled through partial compromise. The issues left open in 2020 — minimum wage, an overtime cap, and the right to strike — are likely to return as Georgia’s EU candidacy brings further approximation requirements. A structured tripartite process would allow these trade-offs to be negotiated on evidence rather than through last-minute lobbying.
5. Conclusion
Employers’ organisations have shaped each round of Georgian labour law reform, securing flexibility on several points while accepting a substantial rebalancing in 2020. The outstanding questions are now clear. Resolving them through transparent social dialogue, with impact evidence, would serve both workers and businesses better than repeated contested reforms.
GILS Recommendations
- Publish regulatory impact assessments for labour law changes, as civil society requested in 2020.
- Use the Tripartite Commission to negotiate the issues left open in 2020: minimum wage, overtime limits and strike rules.
- Evaluate the 2020 reform, including effects on working hours, overtime pay and employment.
- Support small employers’ compliance through guidance and simplified procedures.
GILS Position
Business has a legitimate voice in labour law. So do workers. GILS supports reform built on evidence and negotiated through institutions that both sides trust.
References
- Social Justice Center and other signatories (2020). Labor Reform Under Threat — open letter to the EU and US Ambassadors, the Council of Europe and the ILO, 3 July 2020. socialjustice.org.ge
- IndustriALL Global Union (2020). Union campaign brings improvements to Georgian labour law. 7 October 2020. industriall-union.org
- Civil.ge (2013). Business Groups Warn Against Some Provisions of Planned Labor Code Amendments. civil.ge
- Civil.ge (2013). Labor Code Amendments Passed with First Reading. civil.ge
- OC Media (2020). Sweeping labour reforms go ahead in Georgia despite opposition from business groups. oc-media.org
- Civil.ge (2020). Georgia Passes Sweeping Labor Code Package. civil.ge
- Transparency International Georgia — Chemi Parlamenti (2020). Planned amendments to the Labor Code require a regulatory impact assessment. chemiparlamenti.ge
Suggested citation: GILS Research Team (2026). What Employers Want from Georgia’s Labour Code. GILS Brief. Editor: G. Pkhakadze. Georgian Institute of Labour Studies, Tbilisi. labour.edu.ge
GILS analyses are prepared with AI-assisted drafting. All figures and claims are verified against the cited primary sources and reviewed under the responsibility of the Editor.