The Supreme Court has indicated when a fixed-term employment contract becomes permanent
[ad_1]
The main condition is the continuation of the employee’s work after the end of his term
The federal television company will have to reinstate the employee and pay him a salary for the period of forced inactivity. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation came to this conclusion after considering the case of a former television media outlet.
As follows from the case materials, the plaintiff was hired in November 2018, having concluded an employment contract until December 31. The Russian Labor Code allows for such an opportunity for people engaged in creative activities, in particular in the field of media. For example, a TV presenter may enter into an agreement to host a series of programs, and a writing journalist may enter into an agreement to write a series of articles. After this, at the initiative of one of the parties, the contract can be terminated, and the employer must notify the employee that the contract is being terminated three days before termination.
In the case of a television company employee, this was not the case: first, the television channel signed additional agreements with him that he would work until the end of 2019, and then until the end of 2020. And on December 31, 2020, the employer terminated the contract.
The employee considered this unfair and went to court, asking to be reinstated in his position, as well as to recover from the television company his average earnings during the forced absence. The district, appeal and cassation courts decided that the dismissed employee’s superiors were right. Then he appealed to a higher authority.
The Supreme Court explained what the mistake of the lower authorities was: they did not take into account one important circumstance, to which the plaintiff appealed. The fact is that the media employee continued to work after the completion of the first fixed-term contract, which is confirmed by documents. Therefore, his dismissal on the basis of termination of the contract is unlawful. The court decisions have been overturned and the case will be re-examined in the district court.
[ad_2]
Source link
