The state Duma rejected a bill which provides for a mechanism of compensation of expenses of citizens for sports, including in sports complexes and fitness clubs.
The document was submitted in may of last year. The initiators of the document was initiated by deputies from “Fair Russia”, headed by faction leader Sergei Mironov.
The bill provides for the introduction of a mechanism of compensation to the citizens of the funds they spent on physical education in physical culture and sports organizations, at the expense of employers and means of the Federal budget of the Russian Federation. With 50% of the cost of annual maintenance paid by the employee for the services of physical culture and sports organizations are subject to compensation by the employer and 25% — at the expense of the Federal budget.
The total amount of monthly compensation may not exceed 25% of the minimum wage in the region where the citizen. In addition, in order to receive compensation, the employee must attend sports regularly (at least 75% of the classes) and confirm it with documents of physical culture and sports organizations.
The profile state Duma Committee on labor, social policy and veteran Affairs recommended the bill to be rejected.
“The position of the bill under which the total amount of monthly compensation “may not exceed 25% of the amount of the minimum wage prescribed for the subject” does not take into account the provisions of article 133 of the labour code, according to which the minimum wage is set simultaneously in the entire territory of the Russian Federation Federal law”, — it is noted, in particular, the report of the Committee.
However, according to article 133 of approx. 1 of the labour code in the Russian Federation regional agreement on the minimum wage can be minimum wage in the subject of the Russian Federation, say MPs.
“The bill contains a requirement that the receipt of the above compensation is only possible with employees who have continuous service on a permanent basis in the organization for at least three years. The labour code the concept of “permanently employed” does not contain a bill of its importance does not reveal,” write the MPs.