On July 23, the Oktiabrsky District Court reinstated Oksana Vrublevskaya at her previous job at the Gippo store.
Oksana Vrublevskaya had worked for about a year as a senior cashier at the "Gippo" store, located in the dwelling settlement of Zaslavl. Back in March, Oksana submitted a dismissal application. At first, the store manager agreed to let here quit under the parties' mutual consent, provided that the woman found and trained someone to replace her, but then, the employer changed his mind: by an order dated May 13 (Oksana's day off), she was fired for "systematic failure, for no good reason, to perform her duties."
"Gippo" cashier: I treat a dismissal "under the sanctions article" as illegal
On July 23, the Oktiabrsky District Court of Minsk passed its ruling on the lawsuit of Oksana Vrublevskaya against the "BelVillesden" Unitary Enterprise and obliged the employer to pay her the average salary for her force absenteeism and BYN 300 as compensation for the suffered moral harm – the total amount payable made BYN 2900. Moreover, according to the law, the reinstatement at work and the payment of the average wage for the month of forced absenteeism are subject to immediate execution.
Already today, Oksana Vrublevskaya has handed over her work record book in order to have the entry changed; and from tomorrow she should begin to perform her labour duties," said Igor Komlik, a legal inspector of the REP Trade Union, who represented the claimant's interests in court.
"Gippo" avenges by dismissal "under the sanction article" for information about rats and cockroaches at the store
But the story of rats and cockroaches had no happy end. The court refused to satisfy the claimant's demand for dismissal under Article 41 of the Labour Code, although the violation of safe and healthy working conditions at the store, where Oksana Vrublevskaya worked, was confirmed by the sanitary-epidemiological service and the Ministry for Emergencies.
On July 23, Oksana Vrublevskaya lodged the second application on dismissal upon mutual parties' consent.
"After her appeal to the State Labour Inspectorate regarding the conditions that violated her right to healthy and safe labour, the employer has started harassing the woman. Therefore, she, as at the very beginning of the story, applied for dismissal by mutual parties' consent. So far, there is no employer's official reaction; however, the woman was informed orally that, most likely, her application won't be satisfied. In this case, we'll have no choice but to seek dismissal under Article 41 of the Labour Code. According to Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court No. 4 dated June 26, 2008, the reason for terminating a labour contract under Article 41 is "non-compliance by the employer of his obligation to properly organize the employee's work that can be expressed, in particular, in a failure to ensure the due healthy and safe working conditions," Igor Komlik has summed up.