The Judgement has established a very interesting case to try to clarify the confusing wording of Article 56, 2 (referring to the dismissal declared or recognized as inappropriate) of the Workers' Statute which is:
"In the event that the choice between reinstatement and compensation for the employer, the employment contract is deemed completed on the date of termination when the employer acknowledges the inappropriateness of it and offered compensation under paragraph to paragraph above, depositing in the Labour Court and available to the employee giving notice of it.
When workers accept compensation or accept it and not the dismissal is declared unfair, the amount referred to in paragraph b of the preceding paragraph shall be limited to wages earned from the date of dismissal to the tank, unless deposit occurs within forty-eight hours following the dismissal, in which case any amount becomes due.
To this end, the recognition of the invalidity may be made by the employer from the date of dismissal up to the settlement.
3. Where the employer does not choose for reinstatement or compensation, it is understood that should the first.
4. If the dismissal was a legal representative of workers or a union representative, the option will always correspond to it. Not carrying out the option, means to do it for readmission. When the option, express or implied, is in favor of reinstatement, it will be required. "
The confusion lay in the phrase " For this purpose, the recognition of the invalidity may be made by the employer from the date of dismissal to conciliation. , as many understand that "conciliation" Act referred the act takes place before the appropriate administrative authority in a pre-judicial proceedings. So far, the TS had merely stated that if a notice of the unfair dismissal to the employee by the employer is done through court, the company turned to what the law provided
TS first established when the Act talk of conciliation before an administrative body talks of "prior conciliation." Therefore, when you just mention "settlement" refers to the one held before a judge.
Second, it is recalled that the previous wording of the provision fixed the time limit in the "prior conciliation" meeting before the labor, but to reform the provision of year 2,002 lost the adjective "prior" and does not appear doubtful whether the legislature's intention had been to refer to the same act of reconciliation of the repealed rule, had used the same expression, specific legal significance. And finally it seems that the objective of the 2002 reform was to reduce the cost to the employer unfair dismissals involve eliminating or reducing the wages of processing. This purpose as the TS is undeniably attainable until that occurs the conciliation court. Thus
Case TS puts the previous reconciliation judicial process as the deadline to recognize the unfair dismissal and deposit the compensation thereby reducing or eliminating handling wages.
0 comments:
Post a Comment