| Abstract [eng] |
The work analizes theoretical and practical aspects of termination of labour agreement: grounds of labour agreement termination, peculiarities of court hearings on labour agreement termination are studied, the most important theoretical and practical prblems are determined, solutions are offered. The importance of study is determined by the fact that termination of labour agreement most of all affect and empoloyee‘s proprietary interests, this is the most severe disciplinary punishment which an employer may impose only provided there are serious reasons for that. Disputes regarding termination of a labour agreement are heard directly by court. Such disputes reach up to 17 – 21 per cent of labour disagreements cases. The work stresses that the Labour Code provides sufficient legal protection of an employee‘s rights and interests: an employer discharging an employee at his own initiative should notify, consult and, if possible, offer such employee another job, etc. New legal protection offered by the Labour Code should be appreciated: demand to specify a real and important reason of discharge, demand that an employee should present a written explanation on any violation of labour discipline, etc. The study showed that most problems arise in connection with evaluation of a company‘s restructuring resuling in discharge at an employer‘s initiative. A new provision of the Labour Code – to netermine a open-ended list of gross violations of labour discipline – is positively evaluated. Discharge under Paragraph 11 of Part 2 of Article 235 of the Labour Code seems doubtful, since ther eis no sufficient judicial practice in this respect. An empirical study showed that termination of a labour agreement is ruled illegal and unjustified in about every seventh case. Most labour disputes (about 71 per cent) arise in respect of termination of a labour agreement without notice. Of them disputes on discharge due to gross work violation prevail. The studies determine that an employer often specify a rather abstract reason for discharge. The study showed that in every seventh case employees demand to compensate for nonmaterial damage. Courts usually reduce the demanded compensation several or even tens times. The study determined that in about every second case courts make mistakes: they improperly apply legal norms, insufficiently study circumstances of the case, violate the evidence sufficiency rule, improperly single out labour discipline violation criteria, etc. The work presents offers regarding an employer‘s actions to discharge an employee due to qualification or behavior problems. |
