Being unlawfully dismissed by the employer might result in a claim of lost profits even over period of several preceding years; that is why it is highly recommendable to proceed carefully and with caution when dismissing employees.
One of the common reasons of the dismissal being wrongful may be a wrong choice of the reasons for it as the employers are bound to express them and categorise them in accordance with the Labour Code; a wrong reason, then, may cause the dismissal to be legally invalid regardless of the fact that the conditions might fall into a different dismissal category.
The Supreme Court has recently heard a case in which an employee who was appointed to a newly created post of a department director and whose performance was later found fairly inadequate; the employer, then, decided to shed the position and, while using the fact, dismiss the employee in question on grounds of redundancy.
The employee reacted that as the employer had seen his/her performance lacklustre, they should have stated the “inadequate work performance” being the reason. The Supreme Court has ruled that the objection was substantiated since the two reasons may not be confused – the changes in the company structure, such as axing a post, may not be deemed a valid reason for a redundancy dismissal if they were introduced solely as a result of an employee’s incapability to meet the requirements as expected by the employer; this situation is to be solved by stating by the other reason.
So as to avoid any misunderstanding, it is more than practical to cite more reasons for a dismissal; a court finding at least one of them justified will suffice for the dismissal to be valid.
