" Damages arising from failure to professional reintegration in the workplace is part of the case provided by art. 18 of Law 300/70 as one governed by art. 2103 cc, requires the current in fact and in law of the employment relationship and a demotion occurred during the same, so has its own specific character and marked differences compared to the hypothesis of non-compliance with court order for reinstatement, which is instead governed by provisions of the said Article. 18 (in these Cass terms. 10203/02).
Consequently it is stipulated that the protection scheme real ex art. 18 of Law No 300 of 1970 against the unfair dismissal, the legal pre-determination of damages in favor of the worker (with reference to total remuneration of the fact that the day of the dismissal of the reinstatement) does not preclude the employee could seek compensation for additional damage that is derived from the delay of the reinstatement, and that the judge in the presence of additional evidence of such damage, to clear riding (last V. Cass. 26561/07).
respect to proof of such possible that further damage may be considered in re ipsa, is however, eligible to be considered that, in view of specific allegations (on the necessity of Annex V, Cass. SU 6572/06 is well pronounced in relation to different cases of damage from demotion, but it can also apply to the hypothesis under consideration for the ' analogy of the principles that underlie them), for example, the long period of inactivity and / or a particular work placement that requires a continuous, constant updating of knowledge and knowledge is incompatible with a state of inactivity (which denote, as this court has already held in the judgment 10203/02, a marked injury to the professionalism of the worker unlawfully fired and not reinstated), the court may not use to be considered to have its demonstration of presumptive evidence "(Labor Section 15915 of the Supreme Court July 7, 2009, Pres De Luca, Neapolitan Rel - source Lawyer).
In the case examined by the Supreme Court held that a worker had obtained from the Court of Brescia, according to an employment tribunal, the annulment of the dismissal by the company carried out against him for a justified reason, resulting in order to reintegrate into their place of employment (and compensation for damage caused by the loss of wages), pursuant to art. 18 St. Lav.
The employing company, however, has not complied with the order for reinstatement, leaving the employee entirely idle. This has again brought before the court seeking compensation for the damage professionally. The Court of Bergamo - with sentence upheld by the Court of Appeal of Brescia - has approved the application and submitted that, on the subject, art. 2103 cod. Civ. which gives the employee the right to perform his duties and protecting the professional (the same territorial Court, in another case of similar scope, with decision of 27.6.2007 had stated that "Failure to comply employer's order subsequent reinstatement of unfair dismissal to the employee makes it impossible to engage in any kind of professional situation that falls within the broader concept of demotion, governed by. 2103 cc; under that standard should therefore be compensated to the employee, in addition to loss of earnings up to reinstatement as provided by 'art. 18, paragraph 4, st. lav., further damage (such as lost profits) resulting from the forced inactivity and the inability or failure to acquire the skills and therefore lower earning capacity. The specific nature of the duties previously carried out and the duration of the period of forced inactivity can be considered to reach the logical proof presumptions as to the existence of the alleged damage "- Juris Data source). Following
further appeal brought by the defendant, the Supreme Court gave suesteso principle of law, merely to correct the legal argument with which the Court of Appeal had considered it necessary to accept that action, rejected the requests the applicant: " ... Applying the principles set out in this case follows that the appeal court, while wandering in not considering the case in question is in the rules under Article. 18 of L. 300/70, but that in art. 2103 cc, however, with appreciation of merit, properly motivated and as such unimpeachable in point of law, considered by presumptive reasoning, based on basis of the facts alleged by the workers, the quality and quantity of relevant work experience, the specific type of professionalism, the duration of inactivity and the other circumstances of the case, and that is precisely those elements that show, as mentioned above, arched a lesion of professionalism, having reached the proof of damage. It is true that the applicant company declares a misinterpretation of the question in point of fact of the allegation of damage. In its legitimacy, but this Court has established, which should be distinguished the situation where you lament the absence of an examination of an application, or ruling on an application is not given, from where takes issue with the interpretation given by the court on the application itself: only the former is properly concerns over infringement of Article. 112 cod. proc. Civ. for lack of the necessary correspondence between requested and delivered, argued that the trial judge committed an "error in proceeding", in relation to which the Supreme Court has the power and duty of carrying out direct acts judicial proceedings in order to acquire items needed for the purposes of a preliminary requestversions, where being into consideration is the interpretation of the content or the amplitude of the application, these activities are complementary to a finding of fact, typically before the court on the merits, discretion in Supreme except in terms of correctness of the decision appeal on that point (see for Cass. 20373/08) .
Consequently it is stipulated that the protection scheme real ex art. 18 of Law No 300 of 1970 against the unfair dismissal, the legal pre-determination of damages in favor of the worker (with reference to total remuneration of the fact that the day of the dismissal of the reinstatement) does not preclude the employee could seek compensation for additional damage that is derived from the delay of the reinstatement, and that the judge in the presence of additional evidence of such damage, to clear riding (last V. Cass. 26561/07).
respect to proof of such possible that further damage may be considered in re ipsa, is however, eligible to be considered that, in view of specific allegations (on the necessity of Annex V, Cass. SU 6572/06 is well pronounced in relation to different cases of damage from demotion, but it can also apply to the hypothesis under consideration for the ' analogy of the principles that underlie them), for example, the long period of inactivity and / or a particular work placement that requires a continuous, constant updating of knowledge and knowledge is incompatible with a state of inactivity (which denote, as this court has already held in the judgment 10203/02, a marked injury to the professionalism of the worker unlawfully fired and not reinstated), the court may not use to be considered to have its demonstration of presumptive evidence "(Labor Section 15915 of the Supreme Court July 7, 2009, Pres De Luca, Neapolitan Rel - source Lawyer).
In the case examined by the Supreme Court held that a worker had obtained from the Court of Brescia, according to an employment tribunal, the annulment of the dismissal by the company carried out against him for a justified reason, resulting in order to reintegrate into their place of employment (and compensation for damage caused by the loss of wages), pursuant to art. 18 St. Lav.
The employing company, however, has not complied with the order for reinstatement, leaving the employee entirely idle. This has again brought before the court seeking compensation for the damage professionally. The Court of Bergamo - with sentence upheld by the Court of Appeal of Brescia - has approved the application and submitted that, on the subject, art. 2103 cod. Civ. which gives the employee the right to perform his duties and protecting the professional (the same territorial Court, in another case of similar scope, with decision of 27.6.2007 had stated that "Failure to comply employer's order subsequent reinstatement of unfair dismissal to the employee makes it impossible to engage in any kind of professional situation that falls within the broader concept of demotion, governed by. 2103 cc; under that standard should therefore be compensated to the employee, in addition to loss of earnings up to reinstatement as provided by 'art. 18, paragraph 4, st. lav., further damage (such as lost profits) resulting from the forced inactivity and the inability or failure to acquire the skills and therefore lower earning capacity. The specific nature of the duties previously carried out and the duration of the period of forced inactivity can be considered to reach the logical proof presumptions as to the existence of the alleged damage "- Juris Data source). Following
further appeal brought by the defendant, the Supreme Court gave suesteso principle of law, merely to correct the legal argument with which the Court of Appeal had considered it necessary to accept that action, rejected the requests the applicant: " ... Applying the principles set out in this case follows that the appeal court, while wandering in not considering the case in question is in the rules under Article. 18 of L. 300/70, but that in art. 2103 cc, however, with appreciation of merit, properly motivated and as such unimpeachable in point of law, considered by presumptive reasoning, based on basis of the facts alleged by the workers, the quality and quantity of relevant work experience, the specific type of professionalism, the duration of inactivity and the other circumstances of the case, and that is precisely those elements that show, as mentioned above, arched a lesion of professionalism, having reached the proof of damage. It is true that the applicant company declares a misinterpretation of the question in point of fact of the allegation of damage. In its legitimacy, but this Court has established, which should be distinguished the situation where you lament the absence of an examination of an application, or ruling on an application is not given, from where takes issue with the interpretation given by the court on the application itself: only the former is properly concerns over infringement of Article. 112 cod. proc. Civ. for lack of the necessary correspondence between requested and delivered, argued that the trial judge committed an "error in proceeding", in relation to which the Supreme Court has the power and duty of carrying out direct acts judicial proceedings in order to acquire items needed for the purposes of a preliminary requestversions, where being into consideration is the interpretation of the content or the amplitude of the application, these activities are complementary to a finding of fact, typically before the court on the merits, discretion in Supreme except in terms of correctness of the decision appeal on that point (see for Cass. 20373/08) .
0 comments:
Post a Comment