Use this url to cite ETD: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12259/62373
Options
Ar drausminės atsakomybės reguliavimas naujajame Darbo kodekse neapriboja darbuotojo teisės apsiginti?
Field of Science
Teisė / Law (S001)
Type of publication
type::text::thesis::master thesis
Title
Ar drausminės atsakomybės reguliavimas naujajame Darbo kodekse neapriboja darbuotojo teisės apsiginti?
Other Title
Is the employee‘s right of defence restricted by the regulation of disciplinary liability in the new Labour Code?
Author
Bauraitė, Dovilė |
Advisor
Extent
61 p.
Date Issued
2019-06-05
Abstract
Naujajame 2016 m. Darbo kodekse panaikintas drausminių nuobaudų (pastabos, papeikimo) skyrimas. Kodeksas leidžia darbdaviams skirti darbuotojui įspėjimą apie darbo pareigų pažeidimą, tačiau darbuotojas nebeturi teisės ginčyti šio įspėjimo pagrįstumo, kaip nesukeliančio teisinių pasekmių. Susidaro situacija, kai darbuotojas, siekdamas įrodyti, kad jis nepadarė pažeidimo, už kurį yra gautas įspėjimas, neturi kur kreiptis. Darbo ginčų komisijos atsisako nagrinėti tokio pobūdžio ginčus, nes ,jų teigimu, toks įspėjimas darbuotojui nesukelia jokių teisinių pasekmių, todėl nėra ir darbo ginčo objekto. Tačiau manytina, kad šie neformalūs ir neskundžiami įspėjimai galimai sukelia teisines pasekmes, nes antro tokio pažeidimo gavimas per 12 mėnesių nuo pirmojo gavimo dienos suteikia darbdaviui galimybę atleisti darbuotoją dėl darbuotojo kaltės pagal 2016 m. Darbo kodekso 58 str. Iš šio naujojo reguliavimo keliamas rašto darbo tikslas išnagrinėti drausminės atsakomybės taikymo mechanizmą, galiojusį 2002 m. Darbo kodekse bei 2016 m. Darbo kodekso aktualioje redakcijoje lyginant ar pastarojoje Kodekso redakcijoje nėra apribota darbuotojo teisė apginti savo galimai pažeistas teises. Šį tikslą siekiama įgyvendinti per pastaruosius uždavinius: pateikti drausminės atsakomybės sampratą, galiojusią 2002 m. Darbo kodekse bei įtvirtintą dabar galiojančiame 2016 m. Darbo kodekse, bei drausminės atsakomybės paskyrimo apskundimo galimybės. Aptarti darbuotojo teisę į gynybą per darbo ginčus nagrinėjančių organų kompetenciją bei proporcingumo principo taikymą esant neteisėtam atleidimui. Apžvelgti Baltijos šalyse (Estijoje ir Latvijoje) bei Airijoje veikiantį mechanizmą atleidžiant darbuotojus bei jų galimybės apginti savo teises. Keliama hipotezė, jog drausminės atsakomybės reguliavimas naujajame Darbo kodekse galimai apriboja darbuotojo teisės apsiginti. Pagrindiniai rašto darbe nagrinėjami 2002 m. bei 2016 m. darbo kodeksai, teisminė praktika, pasitelkiama tokių autorių kaip prof. Dr. Tomo Davulio, G. Bužinsko, D. Petrylaitės atliktomis studijomis ir tyrimais. Rašto darbo metu prieita prie išvados, jog galiojus 2002 m. Darbo kodeksui darbuotojui buvo sudaryta galimybė gavus drausminę nuobaudą (pastabą, papeikimą ar atleidimą iš darbo) apskųsti drausminės nuobaudos paskyrimą. Nagrinėjantys ginčą organai turėjo teisę paskirtą nuobaudą panaikinti, jeigu ji buvo paskirta nepagrįstai, nuobauda proporcingai neatitiko padaryto nusižengimo sunkumo arba nebuvo laikytasi nuobaudos skyrimo procedūros, nustatytos Kodekse. Tuo tarpu 2016 m. Darbo kodekse panaikinamas drausminių nuobaudų institutas darbuotojo atleidimo procedūrą padaro paprastesne. Darbo pareigų pažeidimo, nepatenkančio prie šiurkščių pažeidimų, fiksavimas suforminamas raštišku įspėjimu dėl galimo atleidimo pasikartojus identiškam pažeidimui, tačiau be darbdavio sprendimo apskundimo galimybės. Ir tik atleidus darbuotoją dėl šiurkštaus arba pakartotinio identiško pažeidimo darbuotojas turi teisę per vieną mėnesį nuo tada, kai sužinojo apie galimai neteisėtą atleidimą, kreiptis į darbo ginčų komisiją dėl atleidimo teisėtumo, tačiau jam nesudaromos sąlygos „užbėgti už akių“ atleidimui apskundžiant pirmąjį gautą įspėjimą. Tiek 2002 m. Darbo kodekse, tiek ir 2016 m. Darbo kodekse reglamentuojamas darbuotojo atleidimas konstatavus šiurkščius darbo pareigų pažeidimus. Tačiau Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas keičia nusistovėjusią praktiką, jog šiurkštus ar pakartotinis darbo pareigų pažeidimas, reiškia, jog darbuotojas privalomai turi būti atleidžiamas iš užimamų pareigų. Priešingai, darbdavys, prieš nuspręsdamas atleisti darbuotoją, turi paisyti proporcingumo principo ir įvertinti visas su darbo pareigų pažeidimu ir jį padariusiu darbuotoju susijusias aplinkybės prieš priimdamas sprendimą, kuris nebūtinai turi būti atleidimas iš darbo. Rašto darbe tirtų užsienio valstybių, tokių kaip Airijos, Estijos bei Latvijos praktika drausminės atsakomybės taikymo srityje yra panaši tuo aspektu, jog jose nėra imperatyviai nurodomas darbo ginčus nagrinėjantis organas, priešingai Lietuvos teisinei sistemai. Taip pat šiose šalyse, ypatingai Airijoje, drausminės atsakomybės mechanizmas gali būti taikomas jį ištęsiant net iki dviejų metų, jeigu yra matomos darbuotojo pastangos keistis. Tuo tarpu Lietuvoje, panaikinus drausminės atsakomybės institutą, darbdaviui supaprastinamas darbuotojų atleidimas esant 58 str. nurodytiems pagrindams.
The new Labour Code of 2016 eliminates the imposition of disciplinary penalties (remarks or rebukes). The Code enables employers to make a remark on misconduct; however, the employee is not entitled to question the validity of the warning, as having no legal consequences. The employee faces the situation where there is no authority to address to deny misconduct for which the warning is made. The Labor Dispute Committee refuses to handle such arguments, since, according to the committee, such a warning does not have any legal consequences for the employee, and therefore there is no object of a labor dispute. Nevertheless, it is considered that these informal and not subject to appeal warnings may lead to legal consequences, as Art. 58 of the new Labour Code of 2016 allows the employer to fire the employee with the fault of the employee if a person receives the second rebuke in a 12-month-period, starting from the first rebuke.
The new regulation sets the aim of the paper to analyse the application method of disciplinary liability according to the Labour Code of 2002 and 2016, taking into comparison the entitlement to defend one’s potentially violated rights, and if it is not restricted in the current version of the Labour Code.
The objectives of the paper are the following:
- to define the concept of disciplinary liability applicable in the Labour Code of 2002 and the one established in the current Labour Code of 2016, as well as the possibilities of appeal the assignment of disciplinary liability;
- to discuss the employee’s right of defence, including the competence of bodies dealing with labor disputes and the application of the proportionality principle in case of illegal dismissal;
- to examine the active method of employees’ dismissal and the possibilities of defending their rights in the Baltic States (Estonia and Latvia) and Ireland.
There is a hypothesis that the regulation of disciplinary liability in the new Labor Code potentially restricts the employee's right of defence. The main sources analysed in the paper are the Labour Code of 2002 and the Labour Code of 2016, case law and articles and research by professors Dr. Davulis, Bužinskas, and Petrylaitė.
The conclusions are made that the employee had a possibility of appeal the assignment of disciplinary liability (a remark, a rebuke, or a dismissal) according to the Labour Code of 2002. The bodies involved in the dispute had the right to repeal the penalty imposed in case of a lack of validity or when the penalty was not proportionate to the seriousness of the offence committed, or the penalty procedure defined in the Code was violated.
Meanwhile, the Code of 2016 simplifies the dismissal procedure, as there is no body of disciplinary liability. Misconduct, excluding gross misconduct, is noted in form of a written warning in case of a possible dismissal if identical misconduct occurs; however, there is no opportunity to appeal the employer’s decision. The employee has a right of appeal only if one is dismissed due to gross misconduct repeated; within a one month period since a potentially illegal dismissal, the employee should address the Labour Dispute Committee to analyse legitimacy of the dismissal; nevertheless, there are no conditions to "pre-empt" the dismissal by appealing against the first warning received.
Both Labour Code of 2002 and Labour Code of 2016 regulate dismissal of the employee in case of gross misconduct. The Supreme Court of Lithuania is altering the established practice though, and it states that gross misconduct repeated implies that the employee must be released from the duties. On the contrary, deciding to dismiss the employee, the employer must follow the proportionality principle and assess all the consequences related with the employee and misconduct committed, before making a decision which does not necessarily have to be dismissal.
Regarding the scope of disciplinary liability, the practices of foreign states, such as Ireland, Estonia and Latvia, are similar as no body dealing with labour disputes is indicated imperatively; this is contrary to Lithuanian legal system. Moreover, in these countries, Ireland especially, disciplinary liability method may be applied within a longer period of two years, if the employee demonstrates efforts to change; while in Lithuania, due to the fact that the institution of disciplinary liability has been eliminated, dismissal of the employee is simplified on the basis of Art. 58.
The new regulation sets the aim of the paper to analyse the application method of disciplinary liability according to the Labour Code of 2002 and 2016, taking into comparison the entitlement to defend one’s potentially violated rights, and if it is not restricted in the current version of the Labour Code.
The objectives of the paper are the following:
- to define the concept of disciplinary liability applicable in the Labour Code of 2002 and the one established in the current Labour Code of 2016, as well as the possibilities of appeal the assignment of disciplinary liability;
- to discuss the employee’s right of defence, including the competence of bodies dealing with labor disputes and the application of the proportionality principle in case of illegal dismissal;
- to examine the active method of employees’ dismissal and the possibilities of defending their rights in the Baltic States (Estonia and Latvia) and Ireland.
There is a hypothesis that the regulation of disciplinary liability in the new Labor Code potentially restricts the employee's right of defence. The main sources analysed in the paper are the Labour Code of 2002 and the Labour Code of 2016, case law and articles and research by professors Dr. Davulis, Bužinskas, and Petrylaitė.
The conclusions are made that the employee had a possibility of appeal the assignment of disciplinary liability (a remark, a rebuke, or a dismissal) according to the Labour Code of 2002. The bodies involved in the dispute had the right to repeal the penalty imposed in case of a lack of validity or when the penalty was not proportionate to the seriousness of the offence committed, or the penalty procedure defined in the Code was violated.
Meanwhile, the Code of 2016 simplifies the dismissal procedure, as there is no body of disciplinary liability. Misconduct, excluding gross misconduct, is noted in form of a written warning in case of a possible dismissal if identical misconduct occurs; however, there is no opportunity to appeal the employer’s decision. The employee has a right of appeal only if one is dismissed due to gross misconduct repeated; within a one month period since a potentially illegal dismissal, the employee should address the Labour Dispute Committee to analyse legitimacy of the dismissal; nevertheless, there are no conditions to "pre-empt" the dismissal by appealing against the first warning received.
Both Labour Code of 2002 and Labour Code of 2016 regulate dismissal of the employee in case of gross misconduct. The Supreme Court of Lithuania is altering the established practice though, and it states that gross misconduct repeated implies that the employee must be released from the duties. On the contrary, deciding to dismiss the employee, the employer must follow the proportionality principle and assess all the consequences related with the employee and misconduct committed, before making a decision which does not necessarily have to be dismissal.
Regarding the scope of disciplinary liability, the practices of foreign states, such as Ireland, Estonia and Latvia, are similar as no body dealing with labour disputes is indicated imperatively; this is contrary to Lithuanian legal system. Moreover, in these countries, Ireland especially, disciplinary liability method may be applied within a longer period of two years, if the employee demonstrates efforts to change; while in Lithuania, due to the fact that the institution of disciplinary liability has been eliminated, dismissal of the employee is simplified on the basis of Art. 58.
Language
Lietuvių / Lithuanian (lt)
Defended
Taip / Yes
Access Rights
Atviroji prieiga / Open Access