The first thing every citizen leaving his old place of work thinks about is how much money will fall on the card as a severance pay. Naturally, he wants more and that’s okay!
The employer who signs the dismissal order is thinking about how to pay less! And he can be understood too!
But, the opinion of both parties to the employment relationship does not matter at all, since there is a law that sets the terms, amounts and procedure for payment!
If the parties have disagreements that are not regulated by law regarding how much and for what the employer is obliged to pay the quitting employee, the problem becomes “the collection of wages through the courts“.
Get to the point!
“Grand Chamber of Supreme Court considered the dispute (case No. 810/451/17) on the delay (non-payment, compensation) of severance pay and published the conclusion that the adoption of a court decision on the recovery of payments which established after dismissal does not terminate the employer’s obligation to compensate the employee for property losses”
So, the case concerned the interpretation of Art. 117th Labor Code of Ukraine in the context of compensation for lost earnings. Indeed, if the basis for dismissal was the employer’s failure to comply with labor legislation, then the employee has the right to receive compensation for this violation of his rights in the amount of three average monthly earnings.
A citizen applied to the court with a claim against the employer-state-owned enterprise. He demanded the recovery from the employer of the average earnings for the time of the delay in payment upon dismissal.
The delay was due to the fact that the dismissal was challenged in court and its date actually shifted by several months.
The court of first instance denied the plaintiff and the appeal court also. The refusal was motivated by reference to the decision of the European Court of 08.04.2010 in the case “Menshakova vs Ukraine”.
It was said that an employee is only eligible for compensation for the delay period pending resolution of the payment dispute.
The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court!
The case was considered by the Grand Chamber and “revealed” the mistakes of the previous instances!
The following was stated:
GC-SCU clearly and specifically spoke about the fact that enterprises are obliged to carry out a full settlement with employees, including for periods of time when controversial issues regarding payments were resolved.
The Supreme Court of Ukraine, by its decision in case 308/4390/18 of 16.12.19, determined the aspects of deviation from the principle of equality of shares in the division of jointly acquired property of spouses. The fact of the presence of children living with the father (on his full support) and the mother, who does not […]
Interestingly the judges are judging! There is no other way to say after analyzing case No. 750/5469 / 18, which reached the Supreme Court and ended with the publication of a legal conclusion on it on 03.03.2021. In the beginning there was an acquittal … The District Court concluded that the citizen was innocent of […]
They wanted to save money, but it turned out the other way around. The couple built a house in which they planned to live happily ever after, but the family union fell apart … In court, the question arose of how to divide the house, which, as it turned out, cannot be divided due to […]
The risks of investing in construction in Ukraine are obvious, nevertheless, they still continue to invest in this industry, because the demand for housing in our country remains steadily high. When investing, the contribution “grows” along with the construction, the closer the date of its commissioning, the more expensive it becomes. At the same time, […]
The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of Ukraine, by its legal opinion in case No. 916/190/18 of 06/04/19, answered the question, does the installment plan for the execution of the judgment terminate the contractual obligation? According to the published conclusion, the installment plan, in fact, only affects the procedure for the enforcement of the […]
The citizen applied to the court with a claim against two other persons, demanding the recognition of property rights by inheritance. The claim was motivated by the fact that after the death of her aunt, an inheritance for real estate (house, land) was opened. She, within the time period established by law, turned to the […]
Entrust the settlement of legal disputes to the SPEAKER team of professionals! Get the highest level of legal services.
We are ready to start discussing your task. We will contact you shortly.Back