The purpose of the paper is to address ongoing disputes regarding the interpretation of labor law. The authors aim to explore whether the method of enacting normative acts affects the interpreter’s goals during the interpretation process. Some literature suggests that when they are en­acted through agreement (such as labor collective agree­ments), in contrast to acts not enacted in this manner, the interpreter should prioritize the actual intentions of the parties involved over the literal meaning of their provi­sions. The authors argue that there is no difference in this regard among various normative acts. In all cases, the au­thor’s intention is what interpreters seek.