Employee Reinstatement Agreement
The decision of the Sub-Circumscription Court was not upheld on appeal. In the relevant part, the Court of Appeal found that Amsta had not adequately assisted the worker in improving his performance and that, as a result, the legal conditions for dismissal had not been met. The Court of Appeal overturned the sub-district`s decision and ordered Amsta to reinstate the employment contract on November 1, 2017 (11 months after the original termination date). The Court of Appeal did not accept reinstatement at the time of the previous hiring and rejected the employee`s application for compensation for loss of income during the period when he was not employed. With regard to the transitional payment received by the first instance after the expiry of his employment contract, the Court of Appeal expressed the assumption that the employee would repay the transitional payment when the employment contract resumed. The employee then appealed to the Supreme Court. In its decision, the Supreme Court used the Amsta case to direct lawyers on various aspects of the reintroduction of employment contracts by the appelnement courts and, in this context, on a possible reimbursement of the transitional payment. According to the 6th U.S. Court of Appeals, an arbitrator`s decision to interpret a collective agreement so that an employee is reinvested and not terminated, whose incarceration led him to violate the employer`s policy of attendance, was a valid interpretation. A justified reason is considered necessary for the dismissal of a worker who works on such a position with an indeterminate contractual duration of at least 6 months and employs more than 30 people.
Under section 18 of the Code, the employer bases the dismissal of a worker on a justified cause that is the cause of either the worker`s suitability, his actions, or the necessities of work or the workplace. Following a rehiring decision decided by the courts, the employer reinstates the employee within thirty days and the employer is required to pay the employee four (4) months of gross salary applicable to his work stoppage during a dispute. Please note the benefits below, which apply in cases where the employer does not reinstate the employee as a result of the Court`s decision. A staff member had already collected eight and a half points as part of the attendance policy when he committed a crime while on family leave, pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 30 days in prison. Before beginning his sentence, the employee and his union representative met with Zeon to avoid his dismissal. As part of the agreement negotiated with Local 72D of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Zeon Chemicals retained the right to lay off and discipline its employees for “just cause.” The agreement also included a attendance policy where a worker would receive points of absenteeism and slowness. The policy also provided that the worker`s 12-point accumulation was grounds for dismissal. Stefan Sagel and Rik van Haeringen successfully tried the case before the Supreme Court on behalf of the collaborator in the context of De Brauw`s pro-bono policy. The Supreme Court has issued a judgment that will affect cases where the first instance wrongly terminates an employment contract and the Court of Appeal orders reinstatement. The Supreme Court ruled that the transitional payment granted to the worker by the employer at trial would not be cancelled or that the termination of an employment contract by a preliminary proceeding was not annulled.