The Basic Court of Podgorica will have to assess again whether Christian Dukaj, a former official in the office of the former president of the Municipality of Tuzi Nika Đeljošaj endured mobbing while working for the current Minister of Economic Development.
This was decided by the High Court in Podgorica following an appeal by Dukaj.
The Basic Court had previously decided that all of Dukaj's claims were unfounded or inadmissible, but the Higher Court considers that a part of the judgment "... was passed in violation of the provisions of the civil procedure, since in that part there are no reasons for decisive facts, and the reasons given are contradictory to the content case files and evidence presented, which is a consequence of incorrectly and incompletely established factual situation and incorrect application of substantive law".
The High Court reminds that the Law on Prohibition of Harassment at Work stipulates that if the applicant of the proposal for a peaceful resolution of the labor dispute made it likely that mobbing took place, "the burden of proving that there was no such behavior is on the defendant, that is, on the other side in the dispute".
"The active role of the court dictated that the plaintiff be informed of the necessity for the claim to be determined so that it can be used to identify the disputed actions which, according to the plaintiff, constitute abuse at work, regardless of the fact that the first-instance court evaluated them individually through the explanation of the verdict, finding that there was no abuse at work in those shops. However, according to the order of this court, such a conclusion, as a result of which the first-instance court rejected the plaintiff's requests for the determination of mobbing and compensation for non-material damages due to the violation of personal rights, was based on an incorrectly and incompletely established factual situation, which resulted in a lack of reasons for decisive facts, and the reasons given contradict the evidence presented", it was emphasized in the judgment of the High Court, which "Vijesti" had access to.
Dukaj, a former public relations officer, claimed in the lawsuit against the Municipality and Đeljošaj that he suffered abuse at work for a long period of time, and he also requested that the defendant be prohibited from further abuse at work. With the claim, he requested that the court oblige the defendant to pay him the amount of 4.000 euros with statutory default interest, from the date of the first-instance judgment until payment, in the name of compensation for non-material damages due to abuse at work and resulting violations of personal rights.
"The plaintiff bases the claim on the claims that on 08.05.2020 year, suffered abuse at work committed by the president of the Municipality of Tuzi, stating that on that day, in the office, which the prosecutor shared with a colleague A. Lj., the president of the Municipality of Tuzi rudely, in a raised tone, asked him to leave the same, and that he pointed towards the door with his hand, that after that event he was put in a situation where he was not allowed physical access to the building of the Municipality of Tuzi and that since then forced to come to work in the meeting room of the Secretariat for Agriculture and Rural Development, which is leased by the Municipality of Tuzi, and which is located in a completely different building", was specified in the judgment of the High Court. It is also added that Dukaj refers to the "empty table" syndrome, emphasizing that in the period from May 18.05.2020, 20. year and until the end of the trial work, that is, on February 2, 2021, he received only eight work assignments "and that's so that he gets one work assignment, and then in the next three months he doesn't get a single one."
Dukaj based his employment in the then cabinet of Đeljošaj on the basis of a contract and a trial period of one year.
The Municipality claimed that his contract was not extended because he was rated as "unsatisfactory during the trial period".
The Higher Court assesses that the Basic Court acted correctly when it dismissed as inadmissible the claim in which it was requested to "prohibit the defendant from further abuse at work against the plaintiff".
"In the retrial, the first-instance court will eliminate the shortcomings pointed out by this verdict, which will create the conditions for making a legal decision in this legal matter, while it should be pointed out that for mobbing it is enough for the victim to provide evidence that mobbing was probably committed , and the defendant (employer) has the burden of proving that there was no behavior that represents mobbing", it was emphasized in the final judgment of the High Court.
Bonus video:
