The court's decision was involved in the legal force, which created a very serious situation – the mother suddenly became ill with a citizen, and she desperately needed the help of her son. But his owner did not consider such a reason for the absence of the staff. And shoot him.

Citizens in terms of classification disagrees with the dismissal and court with a lawsuit against the employer that he asks to recover at the workplace.
Lawyers specializing in labor disputes say that today the recovery requirements in the workplace and the challenge of firing in their dispute list are not only many, but a lot. Most of the court lawsuits.
Therefore, the decision of this court can help many citizens in the lawsuit with the government.
The story, about it starting completely Trite – an employee of a large business mentioned the head of the seminar with a statement. Citizens asked him to give him a vacation without salary. And he explained that he needed him because his mother was sick and she needed to be cared for. In this statement, the high -ranking master wrote “I don't mind”, and it was transferred to the production manager.
Without waiting for the answer from him, the staff went on vacation without saving. And when he returned a week later, the owner asked for an explanation of the absence of the workplace.
The staff explained in detail for the head of his absence and asked to confirm the words with the documents. Includes conclusions from the diagnostic center and city hospital. But the employer did not go into detail, but simply fired employees because of absence. And he went to court with a lawsuit against the owner. The dispute is noticeable and legal information portal. Ru.
In the first trial, the staff's arguments were coldly responded. Its complaint is “the rest without satisfaction.” Losing, but not reconciled, the staff appealed this refusal.
The court of the second version has recognized illegal dismissal and restoring employees at the workplace. After that, the employer did not agree with this. But the dispute was lost – the Cassation Court agreed with the appeal. And most importantly – explain the base he did it.
The court said that when applying a disciplinary penalty, the employer did not take into account the ability to apply another type of discipline, less stringent for the plaintiff. The employer “did not conduct the principles of justice, proportions and humanism.” In addition, the employer did not take into account the cases of wrongdoing. In addition, Cassation said that the employer did not provide evidence that he had taken into account the seriousness of an employee's wrongdoing. There is also no evidence that employees who are not not involved in work have led to the beginning of negative consequences for employers.
The definition of appeal has not changed.
Determine Ksoy N 8G-1762/2025 Thursday