Employer-Initiated Termination of Employment Contract Recognized as Invalid
- 2022-07-27
In the lawsuit presented to the Court, we stated that the employment contract concluded with the Defendant Company was terminated at the employer's initiative due to the violation of the internal procedural rules set forth in the internal legal act.
The Plaintiff had registered an individual entrepreneurial activity (IEA) under their own name and was engaged in business activities during non-working days and hours, about which they had informed their direct supervisor.
The basis for recognizing the dismissal order as invalid was the lack of factual grounds and the absence of the specific legal norm in the termination order that would justify the dismissal, as well as the fact that the Plaintiff had not been informed about the employer's internal legal act, which prohibited engaging in entrepreneurial activities.
Considering the above grounds, the Court concluded that every individual is guaranteed the freedom to choose their occupation, which in turn serves as a guarantee of entering into employment relationships without discrimination. At the same time, individuals are provided with an equal opportunity to demonstrate their professional and other abilities freely.
However, alongside the guarantee of freedom to choose an occupation, legal frameworks are in place to protect both employees' and employers' rights and legal interests.
The Court noted that the specific legal regulation concerning the employer-initiated termination of an employment contract did not include all the conditions under which one could exercise the right to terminate the contract on their own initiative. In such cases, the individual legal act that terminated the employment contract should also reflect the legal norms containing the conditions and grounds for termination based on this specific reason.
In other words, if the case of termination was governed by one norm, and the conditions for terminating the contract were defined by another norm, the individual legal act should indicate both the norm foreseeing the case and the specific legal regulation detailing the conditions under which the case could occur.
In this case, the contested individual legal act lacked both the legal grounds and, accordingly, the factual grounds, and the record of such circumstances was sufficient to declare the individual legal act invalid.
The Court also considered it lawful to demand the recovery of the average wage for the entire period of forced idleness.
Note:
The decision of the Yerevan City Court of First Instance in civil case No. ED/24216/02/21 has entered into legal force.