Is it an immediate dismissal or a simple notice and should the employer support the dismissed employee for about 2 months notice and check her further if she does not misuse her property for private purposes ?
The Supreme Court has, in the past and on several occasions, considered that an attack on the property of an employer, whether direct (for example theft, damage, abuse, etc.) or indirect (for example by attempting to extract part of the employer’s property without compensation) is in itself sufficient to conclude in a particularly gross manner that the employee has failed to fulfill his obligations under the legislation relating to the work carried out by him, and therefore constitutes grounds for immediate dismissal (in accordance with the provisions of article 55, paragraph 1, letter b) of the Labor Code.)
As can be seen and confirmed by the cases that we have presented to you, it must not at all be an explicit theft of the employer’s property, but various abuses, the use of resources of the employer.
Immediate dismissal must be fair and exceptional if the employee is not sanctioned by dismissal
However, at the same time (as we explained in the article Immediate dismissal must be formally correct and fair), an employee who has violated in a particularly gross way the obligation arising from the legislation relating to his work can be dismissed immediately (instead of terminating the employment relationship by dismissal in accordance with the provisions of article 52 letter g) of the part of the sentence preceding the semicolon of the Labor Code) moreover, the circumstances of the case justify the conclusion that the employee cannot be dismissed by dismissal (according to the provisions of § 52 letter g) of the part of the sentence before the semicolon of the Labor Code), the employer cannot be fairly bound to employ the employee until the end of the notice period.
Immediate dismissal should be a truly exceptional measure for the most serious breaches of discipline in a particularly gross manner.
Therefore, in any dispute over the validity of an immediate dismissal, consideration is given to whether the immediate dismissal was so justified and necessary that the employer could not be fairly bound to continue to employ the employee, even temporarily (particularly during the notice period), i.e. terminating the employment relationship by dismissal instead of immediate termination would constitute a certain difficulty for the employer. Only then is the immediate termination of the employment contract justified.
The employee was paid for 3 hours when she was not working, misusing the employer’s company car and fuel
In two cases, the employee attended to her private affairs during working hours for 1.5 hours without the knowledge and consent of the employer. Furthermore, he attended to these private matters to the place where he was transported by the private car of the employer, thus seeking to obtain a specific advantage at the expense of the employer and thus (intentionally) trying to drain a part of the employer’s property without due consideration.
She thus committed an indirect attack on the property of her employer, which also led to a loss of confidence on the part of the employer.
The employer does not have to take any action to increase ownership control and the employee simply fires him
The Supreme Court in its judgment (file n° 21 Cdo 1777/2021 of November 25, 2021) rejected the view previously taken by the Court of Appeal that the employer’s concern about his assets during a possible two-month notice period (if instead of immediate dismissal he gave the employee a dismissal) “was resolvable within the extent of the employer’s remedy, or increased control over the employee”.
NS also denied that “the consequence of the employee’s situation in the event of immediate dismissal was incomparably more serious than any organizational action the employer would take during the notice period to protect his property or interests”.
The employer cannot be fairly required, during the notice period, to take all measures to protect his property vis-à-vis the employee who committed the damage to the employer’s property and to do everything in his power, even financially, to be able to The Supreme Court interpreted concerns about its assets to employ employees for whom the legal preconditions for immediate termination of employment were otherwise met.
The Supreme Court of the Czech Republic therefore modified the judgment of the Court of Appeal in its judgment by dismissing the action of the dismissed employee for a declaration of invalidity of the immediate dismissal, and thus decided the case itself.
It’s not just about property and money, but also about mutual trust and loyalty
Employees are expected to properly manage funds entrusted to them by the employer and to safeguard and protect the employer’s property from damage, loss, destruction and misuse and not to act contrary to the interests legitimate employer. (Article 301 letter d) of the Labor Code.)
These obligations, which are part of the fundamental obligations of employees, generally represent a moral imperative imposed on any employee, which in its content means a certain degree of loyalty towards his employer and also a general obligation of prevention of the employee in matters of property and legitimate right. interests of the employer. .
It is a requirement of a certain level of quality of the behavior of the employee, because in the relations between the employer and the employee, a relationship of trust, reliability of the employee and honesty is essential. Therefore, in addition to the obligations arising from legal regulations and other regulations relating to the work of the employee (provisions of § 301 letter c) of Law n. work) requires the employee not to cause harm to the employer, whether financial or moral, in all his behavior in relation to the employment relationship.