2024-04-17News in English
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
<< atgalTwo court cases won
2009-10-21
Lithuanian service sector workers' union in the first instance court won two cases for a single "G4S Lithuania" employee. They both relate to one event. Lawyer Jolanta Cinatienė represented Donatas Stankevicius in court.
It all began from the moment when the security company refused the practices to transport workers to and from work. D. Stankevicius came to work and brought uniform in a bag and demanded that the employer would provide him a place to change clothes and get locker to put clothes. Because the rules of procedure states that during non-working time employee cannot wear uniforms therefore he must to go to work with his own car, or bring uniforms to work and somewhere change clothes.
The employer said he will not provide the possibility to change and whereas employee is without uniform, he was unable to work be was removed from work. Trade unions in the court were motivated by the reasons in support of the Labor Code, which indicates the reasons of firing an employee. Arrival to work without a uniform is not included among the reasons in the Labor Code.
Thus, this issue has been challenged, as an employee for that day has not received a salary. Moreover, the employer wished him to issue a disciplinary penalty, and since Stankevicius is trade union board member, that required union consent. So, the reason case was open, because the union refused to give such consent.
According to the employee representative in court J. Cinaitienė, usually the courts neglects automatically such trade unions refusals to accept the disciplinary penalty, treating it as a violation of the employer's interests. Therefore, this case is one of the few when unions win this kind of dispute in court.
Moreover, the court proposed to conciliate conflicting parties, the employee was willing to do so, but the employer's lawyer refused to conclude a peace treaty, because it would be a matter of principle, precedent for employer behavior in the future: he would be obliged to continue to transport workers from home, or let them come by themselves and change closes anywhere.
The court found that the employee was suspended from his job not for refusing to wear a uniform, but on other grounds. Firing on another reason contradicts to the Labor Code.
In the second case, the court order states: "During the hearing there was no evidence found that the refusal to give consent to any disciplinary penalty to Donatas Stankevicius would interfere with employers' ability to perform basic functions." It was stated that the employee did not refused to wear uniforms, but demanded from the employer the conditions (place) to change clothes. Meanwhile, in the company such conditions not existed, therefore is legitimate trade union refusal to give consent for disciplinary action.
Both court orders an employer can appeal to a higher court.
At the moment two other trials continue in connection with the company G4S, were union fights unfair dismissal.
