An employer’s failing to formalise remote work in writing is transgression, if a worker de-facto does job duties remotely. The realities The worker was rejected as a result of absenteeism. She did not agree with the termination and also sued with the court.
The insurance claim was supported by the fact that she de facto carried out work duties from another location and also interacted with the company by means of phone and e-mail. The choice The first degree court denied the employee’s case because the employment agreement did not contain the conditions on remote job. The court of appeal disagreed, noting that the company’s failure to formalise remote work, in composing, does not show that the parties have actually not settled on remote work, and also can not entail negative effects for the employee.
The court also indicated that the employee had functioned remotely for a long period of time, the company calculated and also paid her income, which, taken with each other, means that the company tacitly settled on the existing working conditions. Resource: Allure ruling of the Moscow City Court, dated 18 November 2020 in case No. 33-416582/ 2020. Justness and also symmetry. A company should be assisted by the concepts of fairness as well as proportionality when disciplining an employee. The realities. The staff member’s instant supervisor concurred, via WhatsApp, that the worker can function from another location that day, due to being unwell. Consequently, the staff member was dismissed because of absence. The worker challenged the dismissal in the court, declaring that the employer had settled on remote work, and also during the day the employee had actually effectively completed work tasks.
Furthermore, an extract from the employee’s medical record confirms that, on that day, the worker attended a center with medical grievances. The choice. The first level court acknowledged that the staff member’s dismissal, as a result of absence, was lawful. The court of second degree differed with this setting and also specified that the worker was absent, without an excuse, since he did not submit a medical handicap certificate. However, thinking about that he had actually concurred remote collaborating with his instant supervisor as well as finished job tasks, the court involved the verdict that the company did not experience negative repercussions, as a result of the staff member’s lack in the office, as well as the court thought about the termination was illegal. The court noted that when imposing a disciplinary assent, the company should be directed by basic principles of disciplinary obligation, particularly, fairness, proportionality, legitimacy.