Immediate termination of employment because of a love relationship with a business partner manager
JUDr. Jakub Vozáb, PhD. 04.03.2017
High Court 21 Cdo 4902/2014
The Supreme Court of the Czech Republic ruled in a senate composed of the chairman of the senate JUDr. Zdeněk Novotný and judges JUDr. Ljubomír Drápal and JUDr. Lubomír Ptáček, Ph.D. in the legal case of the applicant M. S., represented by Mgr. Lubor Šíd, lawyer based in Prague 1, Veleslavínova No. 59/3, against the defendant Lázně Bechyně, s.r.o. with its registered office in Bechyně No. 202, Company Identification Number 466 78 654, represented by Mgr. Martin Bílý, a lawyer based in Ostrava, Olivova No. 553/3, on the invalidity of the dismissal and on the invalidity of the immediate termination of employment, kept at the District Court in Tábor under file no. 7 C 78/2012, on the defendant's appeal against the judgment of the Regional Court in České Budějovice – branch in Tábor of 26 June 2014 File no. 15 Co 211 / 2014–276, as follows:
- The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
- None of the participants is entitled to reimbursement of the costs of the appeal proceedings.
From the justification:
If, in the present case, the defendant criticizes the applicant for having entered into a ‚love affair with an important business partner's manager, the father of the family‘, then it does not make a proper distinction between the employee's personal and private relationships on the one hand and employment law on the other. Court of Appeal – “the mere establishment of this private relationship cannot be classified as any breach of the plaintiff's obligations as an employee within the meaning of the provisions of Section 301 of Act no. work". Somewhat exaggerated, and at the level of speculation, is already the reasoning of the appellant that in doing so (ie by establishing a „love affair“) the applicant „deliberately acted against the interests of the defendant“. It is certainly possible that, in the context of non-employment or private relationships, information may be disclosed concerning facts relating to the employer's operation, or facts which are of the nature of business secrets and which would be of an employment nature in this respect. Then, however, the factual reason for the act aimed at terminating the employment relationship may be a breach of these obligations, and not the mere fact that the employee has established a relationship (personal, family, sibling, friendly, etc.) with which the employer does not agree.
In the present case, the defendant did not even claim that the applicant had disclosed, in the course of its personal relations, any sensitive facts concerning its activities which might harm the defendant. In its immediate termination of employment, it also criticizes the applicant for having ‚misused purpose-built business trips with a company car for contacts with her object of interest, deliberately misrepresenting superiors the names of persons she was to meet, significantly abusing the working time fund and official communication means to entirely for private purposes ', and‘ on the days of the inspection of the place where she was to be staying, ‚your persistent absence has been repeatedly established‘.
It follows from the provisions cited above that the reason for the immediate termination of the employment relationship must be stated in the written immediate termination of the employment relationship in such a way as to indicate the actual reasons which lead the other party to the employment relationship to terminate the employment relationship, that there are no doubts as to what the participant intended to express, ie which legal reason for the immediate termination of employment, and to ensure that the reason given cannot be subsequently changed. The reason for the immediate termination of the employment relationship must therefore be specified by stating the facts in which the participant sees the fulfillment of the legal reason so that no doubts can arise as to why the employment relationship is terminated immediately.
The reason for immediate termination of employment must therefore be stated not only so that it is clear which of the reasons stated in the provisions of § 55 para. 1 of Act no. the work has been applied, but at the same time in such a way that it is unquestionable in what specific conduct the employee is seen; only such a factual specification of the reason used ensures that there are no doubts as to why the employment relationship was terminated immediately and that the reason cannot be subsequently changed. The facts which led to the immediate termination of employment do not need to be elaborated in detail, as the uncertainty of the will is invalid only due to the uncertainty and incomprehensibility of the expression of will if the interpretation of the expression could not determine why the employment was terminated immediately. (cf., for example, the judgment of the Supreme Court of 21 November 1996, file no. 2 Cdon 198/96, published under No. 35 in the magazine Soudní judatika, year 1998). For the reason according to § 55 par. 1 let. b) Act. work it is necessary to pay increased attention to the exact description of the alleged act, so that its exact individualization is possible, it is necessary to give specific data on when, where, by what actions and which specific obligation should be violated.
In the present case, the immediate termination of employment was served on the defendant ‚by registered post‘, so that the content of the immediate termination could not be discussed with the applicant in connection with its service, so that it could be inferred that the defendant must have been clear acts of the defendant's annulment in order to be able to defend himself, for example, by a certain official car ride for business reasons, that a specific conduct which would be described as fictitious actually took place, etc. If the appellant claims that ‚He cannot know precisely the matters which the applicant wrongly told him‘ and that ‚at the time of the immediate termination of employment (factual reasons) he did not know in detail‘, then he actually confirms that at the time of the immediate termination of employment he could not so that it cannot be confused with another (cf. § 60 of the Labor Code). It is also possible that the defendant later „revealed the facts in more detail and was thus able to specify them better in the proceedings“, however, this circumstance is also not relevant for the assessment of the case, because the defined factual reason must not be changed later labor law).