The High Court in Bijelo Polje upheld the verdict of the Basic Court in Pljevlje, which annulled as illegal the decision on the dismissal of Vasilij Robović, a long-time employee of the company "Čistoća".
The court ordered the executive director of "Čistoća" Sasa Ječmenica to return Robović to work and assign him to a position that corresponds to his professional training. "Čistoća" should compensate Robović for the costs of the litigation in the amount of 605 euros within eight days.
In February of last year, Ječmenica delivered a decision on the dismissal of Robović, after 40 years of service, due to alleged violent, inappropriate and offensive behavior. Robović worked as a material accountant in the Service for Accounting, Finance, Plan and Analysis, and since 2017 he has been assigned to the duties of a debt collector.
"The general collective agreement in case of termination of the employment contract due to violent, improper or offensive behavior towards the parties or employees does not prescribe the employer's obligation to provide the employee with a written warning about the existence of a reason for the termination of the employment contract, but such an obligation of the employer is prescribed by the Labor Law, which in in a specific case, it gives the employee a greater scope of rights than the General Collective Agreement", the explanation of the decision states. It is established that the director did not deliver a written warning to Robović about the existence of reasons for dismissal, nor did she conduct disciplinary proceedings against him, which was required by law, thus denying him the right to defend himself against the allegations presented.
"The written warning about the existence of a reason for dismissal must contain clear reasons for the dismissal, so that the plaintiff can exercise his right to defend himself, which he was not allowed to do... The court of first instance correctly found that the contested decision did not contain the identification of the nature of the violation of the work obligation due to which the plaintiff's contract was terminated about work, it was only stated that it was violent, inappropriate and offensive behavior towards other employees, i.e. the reasons were stated in the explanation as if the dismissal occurred due to temporary inability to work, but it was not stated where, when and how the plaintiff behaved or the defendant submitted evidence in that direction. The appellate allegations that the statements of the heard witnesses were not appreciated are unacceptable, because the fact that the prosecutor was not given a written warning about the reasons for the dismissal, the statements of the heard witnesses have no effect," the court explained.
Bonus video:
