Ar darbdavio pareiga pasiūlyti laisvą darbo vietą, nuo įspėjimo momento iki atleidimo, yra absoliuti?
Česonytė, Lina |
Vienas iš darbo sutarties nutraukimo būdų numatytas Lietuvos Respublikos teisės aktuose yra darbo sutarties nutraukimas darbdavio iniciatyva, kai nėra darbuotojo kaltės. Atleisti darbuotoją iš darbo kai nėra jo kaltės, leidžiama, jei negalima darbuotojo perkelti jo sutikimu į kitą darbą. Kitas darbas yra laisva darbo vieta ar pareigos, atitinkančios darbuotojo profesiją, specialybę, kvalifikaciją ir reikiamais atvejais – sveikatos būklę, o jeigu tokių laisvų vietų nėra arba darbuotojas nesutinka būti perkeltas – bet koks kitas darbas, kurį darbuotojas, atsižvelgiant į jo sugebėjimus ir sveikatos būklę, galėtų dirbti. Darbdavys, nutraukdamas darbo sutartį, turi pareigą ieškoti galimybių perkelti atleidžiamą iš darbo darbuotoją į kitą darbą ir, esant darbuotojo sutikimui, jį perkelti. Tais atvejais, kai įmonė, iš kurios atleidžiamas darbuotojas, turi filialus ar kitus padalinius, esančius netgi kitoje vietovėje, siūloma ir ten, jeigu kito darbo nebuvo darbuotojo gyvenamoje vietovėje. Lietuvos Respublikos teisės aktuose bei Lietuvos Aukščiausiojo teismo praktikoje įtvirtinta darbdavio pareiga akivaizdi, darbdavys turi pareigą pasiūlyti laisvą darbą nuo įspėjimo momento iki atleidimo iš darbo, t.y. per visą įspėjimo laikotarpį, iki pat faktinės atleidimo iš darbo dienos imtinai. Jeigu teismas, nagrinėjantis kilusį šalių ginčą, nustato, kad darbdavys, dėl svarbių priežasčių atleisdamas darbuotoją iš darbo, galėjo jį perkelti į kitą darbą, bet darbuotojui to darbo nepasiūlė, toks atleidimas iš darbo pripažįstamas neteisėtu su visomis iš to kylančiomis pasekmėmis. Darbdaviui nekyla pareiga pasiūlyti atleidžiamam darbuotojui kito darbo tik tuomet, kai kito laisvo darbo įmonėje nėra, arba yra tik toks darbas, kurio darbuotojas nesugebėtų atlikti. Atsižvelgiant į tai, kad darbuotojui turi būti siūlomas laisvas darbas nuo įspėjimo iki pat jo atleidimo iš darbo dienos, bei į tai, kad darbdavys turėdamas pareigą ir galimybę perkelti darbuotoją dirbti kitą darbą to sąmoningai nevykdo ir darbuotoją atleidžia, o toks atleidimas iš darbo pripažįstamas neteisėtu, suponuoja darbdavio pareigos absoliutumą siūlyti darbuotojui laisvą darbo vietą nuo įspėjimo iki atleidimo momento.
Each individual has the right to freely choose a job or a business and the right to appropriate, safe and healthy working conditions, fair salary and social security in case of unemployment. Employment relationship which is based on an employment contract is one of the main legal ways people utilize their right to employment. It has an unparalleled social and economic significance. That is precisely why it must be ensured that employment contracts can only be severed under provisions of the law and only strictly following the established order of termination. One of the ways to terminate an employment contract, established by the laws of the Republic of Lithuania, is an employer’s right to terminate sans the fault of an employee. This is only allowed in a situation where the employer has no other job positions available. Another job position is understood as a vacant position of employment or a certain other position, befitting the employee’s profession specialization, qualification and where necessary – condition of health, and, should there be no such spots or when the employee refuses to be transferred – any other job this employee could undertake, given his or hers abilities and health. The laws of the Republic of Lithuania state also, that to offer another job position is the duty of the administration. Therefore, after a notice is given to an employee, the above mentioned offer should follow immediately. If we interpret the specific obligation provided for in the laws of the Republic of Lithuania linguistically, it becomes obvious that an employer has a duty to offer a vacant job position from the moment of the presentation of a notice till the day of termination, i. e. during the notice period, right up until the exact day of termination, inclusive. Therefore, when terminating an employment contract, an employer has a legal obligation to seek opportunities to transfer the noticed employee, with his or hers consent, to another vacant job position. Even in cases where a company has branches or other subdivisions situated in a different area, this offer still has to be given if there are no possible positions in or around the particular employees’ current place of domicile. Practice of the High Court of Lithuania constitutes that the order of execution and conditions of the duty to provide the above mentioned offer of consensual transfer to an employee, are decided by various important reasons due to which the previously agreed employment relations cannot continue and must be altered, and, if that is not possible – terminated. These reasons (circumstances) determine the specifics of particular terms of such a transfer of an employee, i. e. each separate case may be different, depending on the particular reasons for termination and the capabilities of an employer; however, these inherent differences do not in any way void such duties of the employer. Another job position must be offered individually to an employee; however, an employer can also just provide an employee with all necessary information on the currently vacant jobs within the company and allow him or her to ask for a particular transfer. Employer’s obligation to transfer such an employee to a vacant job position is, in turn, this employee’s right to be transferred to a job which, given their particular profession, specialization and health condition, he or she can work in. Instances where an employer happens to maintain an open record (accessible by all employees) of open positions available, during an employee’s notice period, are not regarded as job offers. An employee’s participation in a selection for an open position within a company, where an employer has not chosen that particular employee for the position in question, provided that valid and due reasons were given, likewise, cannot be regarded as an offer. Usually, two criteria are taken into account when determining whether an employer has an open position to offer for an employee: the formal and the factual. Under the formal criterion, it should be determined whether the company currently has any open job positions available. Under the factual criterion, it should be determined whether there were any new employees accepted to work in the company during or immediately after the notice period. Integrally, when a dispute arises on whether an employer has duly fulfilled his legal obligation to offer an open position during the notice period, such employer must provide sufficient proof that he has indeed done so. Should the court determine that this employer could, in fact, transfer the appropriately laid-off employee to an open position within his company, but failed to offer such vacancy to the employee, the resulting termination and lay-off shall be judged illegal with all resulting consequences. Employer’s ability to transfer an employee under notice to another position is determined by two circumstances: the existence of another open position within the company and the consent of an employee. In its practice, The High Court of Lithuania constitutes that even when an employee first refuses to work in another position but later changes his mind, an employer’s obligation of offer remains in force till the end of the notice period, and the refusal to transfer after an employee accepts this offer or him/herself asks to be transferred after choosing from available options, shall be regarded as illegal and void. An employer is not only bound by the obligation to offer an open job position but, altogether and at the same time, by obligations under other employment contracts with other employees, therefore, during the notice period, an employer may only offer a currently open job position. An employer has no obligation to offer an employee a position which may become open in the future, also, there is no requirement to provide an employee with a position equal to his or hers previous one. It is important to note, however, that an employer has no obligation to offer another open position to an employee, only when there are no other open positions within the company or when there is only work which the particular employee is not capable of doing. Court practice and legal acts concerning employment law of other countries, which were analyzed in this paper, also point out that when an employer has an open job position available, but does not offer it and terminates the employment contract, such termination can be judged illegal. Also, as in Lithuania, these mentioned legal systems require an employer to consider whether he or any associated employer has open job positions available on offer, following just and reasoned process of termination of employment. An employer has no obligation to create a new position for laid-off employees, however, failure to offer an available open position, can deem the termination illegal. Considering that an employee must be offered an open job position during the notice period and also that a termination is deemed illegal when an employer fails to uphold his obligation to offer such open position, we can therefore determine the absoluteness of an employer’s obligation to offer an employee an open job position during the notice period.