Call Leave a request
CCU: it is also impossible to fire a contract worker on vacation

CCU: it is also impossible to fire a contract worker on vacation

The CCU, by its decision on the constitutional complaint in case No. 6-r(II)/2019 of 09/04/2019, categorically “forbade” employers to fire their employees who are on vacation or do not work due to temporary disability!

At the same time, the KSU noted that the situation absolutely cannot be influenced by the fact that the labor relations between the employee and the employer are formalized by an employment agreement (contract).

That is, no employee on vacation cannot be dismissed, since this is a violation of his constitutional rights. There is an exception to this rule, and it is strictly specified in legislation.

Dismissal of an employee which is on vacation is possible if the company is completely liquidated!

The reason for the promulgation of the decision of the Constitutional Court was the appeal of a citizen who was dismissed during her stay on vacation, who, by her situation, “put” before the court the issue of compliance with the Constitution with the provisions of part 3 of Art. 40 of the Labor Code of Ukraine.

Specifics and conclusions in the context of the incident

The citizen applied to the KSU with a request to review the compliance of the KU with the provisions of part three of Art. 40 of the Labor Code, which determines that the dismissal of an employee at the initiative of the employer is unacceptable if the employee is on vacation.

“The applicant pointed out in the complaint that the conclusion of the Supreme Court of Ukraine in her case was incorrect! He determined that the above provisions of the Labor Code do not apply to labor legal relations based on an employment contract. Thus, the Supreme Court of Ukraine violated her constitutional rights, since it “artificially worsened” her working conditions, referring her to a certain category of workers”.

CCU investigated the complaint and established the constitutionality of the provisions of part 3 of Art. 40 of the Labor Code, indicating to the courts of all instances that the solution of similar labor disputes should be carried out taking into account the following:

  1. Part 3 of Art. 40 of the Labor Code “guarantees” employees protection against dismissal initiated by the employer if the employee is temporarily disabled or resting on a well-deserved vacation.
  2. An employment contract is one of the forms of legalizing “urgent” labor relations, and its essential conditions (validity period, grounds for termination / termination, etc.) are agreed by the parties.
  3. The fact that the employment relationship is secured by a contract is not a legal reason for the non-application of the provisions of part 3 of Art. 40 Labor Code.
  4. It is obvious that the dismissal of a “contract worker”, which is on vacation violates his labor rights, as it discriminates against him, which is unacceptable, since labor guarantees are spelled out in the law for everyone.
  5. It follows from this that, the conditions which worsening the position of the employee in comparison with the current legislation, prescribed when drawing up the contract (employment contract) are invalid, and the dismissal is illegal.

18.09.2019

446

YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN
The plaintiff threatened the judge for not explaining the terms of the lease

Even a solution to an economic dispute can become a breeding ground for threats! For example, the consideration of one of the cases, during which the plaintiff asked to explain to him certain clauses of the land plot lease agreement, ended with the tenant dissatisfied with the court decision not in his favor, took it […]

When might you need the help of a criminal defense lawyer?

In some situations, when a person faces criminal liability for certain acts, it is incredibly important to contact an experienced lawyer. The final result depends on how timely the decision on the application is made and how competent the specialist is. If you figure out in what situations you need a lawyer in a criminal […]

When is it impossible to evict from mortgage housing “to nowhere”?

The most useful legal opinion of the Supreme Court of Ukraine in case No. 761/22755/18 of 06.11.2019 – legal assistance (consultation), a life story about how the bank failed to evict a defaulting borrower from a mortgage apartment “to nowhere”! Background of the proceedings The bank applied to the court with a claim for eviction […]

SCU. Jurisdiction of corporate disputes between JSC participants

The Ukrainian Supreme Court answered the question, in which courts are considered disputes arising from corporate relations between current and retired members of companies, regarding invalidation of decisions of general meetings, amendments to statutes, as well as in which courts the termination of contracts for the sale and purchase of parts in authorized capital and […]

Personal mortgage property of a bankrupt entrepreneur: is it subject to collection?

Cassation economic court of the Supreme Court “stood up” for the mortgage apartment of the borrower of the bank, delimiting the personal and business rights and obligations of individual entrepreneurs, as well as limiting the rights of claimants to this property. So, with the conclusion in case No. 922/4404/15, promulgated on 06/04/19, the Supreme Court […]

Statute of limitation expiration – grounds for termination of the mortgage?

The Ukrainian Supreme Court published a legal conclusion governing the aspects of termination of obligations and mortgages due to the expiration of the statute of limitations. Analyzing! Prehistory of the withdrawal in case No. 522/12443/17-c from 22.01.2020 Consideration was given to a claim to invalidate an apartment sale and purchase agreement, a counterclaim to remove […]

Address

01133, Kyiv, blvd. Lesi Ukrainky 26 (block L26), office 613

Email

info@grandliga.com.ua

Phone number

+380443395088

We work

Schedule: from 10:00 to 18:00
Weekend: Sunday

Make a route