" On the issue of demotion and its burden of proof, the employee can respond to management power exercised unlawfully looked forward to assuming the facts times to justify the complaint and, therefore, with a burden of allegation significant issues of fact for the unlawful exercise, while the employer, sued, is to take place, precisely and not merely a general dispute about the facts forming the basis of the claim by the employee (art. 416 CCP) and can attach other, indicative, conversely, the legitimate exercise of managerial power. (In this case, the SU have confirmed the decision of the territorial court had found no basis for the application of the worker for the "lack of any allegation as to the nature of demansionante work tasks related to the specific task") "(Civil Cassation, sez. A ., 06 March 2009, n. 5454).
Article. 2103 Civil Code, provides that the employer, in exercising its executive power, may bring the contents of the obligation concerning the worker's job performance.
The exercise of this power is subject to a debt instrument that paid by the employer is required to bring the work performance of the employee, who has a right to do so, so that the failure to assign tasks constitutes a failure to ex if that obligation with respect to which, when attached by the worker, who was (illegally) free of duties in support in the event of a claim, no burden of proof rests on the latter, with its reference to cases of idle worker, and then attached to the employer's alleged failure to exercise of managerial authority see Cass., Sec. lav., March 6, 2006, No 4766, who said that instead the employer bears the burden of proving that it has fulfilled the obligation of complying with the instrumental work performance of the employee with the allocation of tasks.
When no verse in the case of exercise of the power steering but not distorted or unlawful use of it by jus variandi decisive demotion or deskilling of tasks, the employee may react unlawful exercise of that power attach to giving factual basis for the allegation of illegality. So there is a charge against him to claim, as held by Cass., Sec. lav., October 24, 2005, No 20523 with regard to a hypothesis of insufficient allegation of the facts of the illegality of the exercise of significant power by assigning tasks that do not correspond to the designation and consequent dismissal of the application, cf. also Cass. August 18, 1997 No 7641.
The employer in turn, sued in a dispute involving the unlawful exercise of that assumed power steering, he must take a position in accurately and not limited to a general dispute about the facts alleged by the plaintiff in support of the claim (art. 416 CCP) and can attach other facts, by contrast, are indicative of the legitimate exercise of managerial power.
0 comments:
Post a Comment