(en) France, Alternative Libertaire AL #251 - Lead free!
Prescription mistakes (fr, it, pt) [machine translation]
Annie is hired in seasonal contract by a company producing prunes in August 1999. Seasonal
contracts are renewed until April 2007. Annie is then hired on permanent contracts. In
June 2008 with another employee and to compel the company to apply the collective
agreement, Annie is calling for elections staff and together their candidacy...
Management, outraged, leads a smear campaign invites others employed to run against them
and what are these "delegates" who are elected. Annie is dismissed for gross misconduct in
July 2012. ---- The dismissal for misconduct is "motivated" by the claim of a customer who
found a pebble in a raisin bag. The company explains that this bag was sorted by Annie.
The worksheets produced by the employer show that in one hour, Annie sorted only 500 kg of
raisins... The employer says the dismissal letter: "This type of professional misconduct
is not a first for you since we had to mourn several anomalies since 2009 that have been
quality sheets on the remarks " and refers to two warning letters already sent in 2008 and
in 2010.
The severity of a complaint is not assessed according to the mere fact criticized, but
also in relation to other facts, even already sanctioned, so the repetitive nature can
justify including serious misconduct... provided, however, respect the rules prescription
mistakes. First, a mistake already sanctioned for more than three years is prescribed.
Thus the 2008 warning could not be used. Then the facts mentioned in the warning 2010
would have justified a sanction worse than if there was persistence or repetition of
already sanctioned, which was not the case. There remained the "feedback on quality cards"
having never been imposed and that dated mostly of more than three years and for the last
- that did not concern a sorting problem - two years and two months. If the facts known
for more than two months by the employer can not "alone" give rise to a penalty, the judge
ruled that these facts "can moreover (...) be invoked in support of dismissal soon when
they are older more than three years at the initiation of disciplinary proceedings ".
Therefore, "the committed (...) failure constitutes a first insulated failure, falling
more than the inattention and incompetence if it is grounds for disciplinary action, this
inattention can not constitute (...) a legitimate cause dismissal ". In short Annie could
lawfully be dismissed if six months earlier she had missed another stone... Here, however,
the employer was ordered to pay 34,000 euros for dismissal without just cause.
By Jean-Luc Dupriez, union CGT defender
http://www.alternativelibertaire.org/?Droits-devants-Prescription-des
