Dismissed for "misconduct" .. An employee demands 10 million dirhams in compensation

The Court of Appeal upheld a ruling of the Abu Dhabi Court for Family and Civil and Administrative Claims, which rejected a claim for compensation of an employee in the amount of 10 million and 569 thousand dirhams for unfair dismissal and defamation.

The details of the case compensate for an employee filing a lawsuit against a company, in which she demanded that she be obligated to pay her 10,569,000 dirhams in compensation for the material and moral damages she sustained as a result of her unfair dismissal, defamation and slander, noting that she had been working for the defendant company since 24 Her services were terminated without prior notice, which prompted her to raise compensation for 3 years of the voluntary separation plan, and her loss because she was not able to buy ten years of retirement and was not given the notice period, and compensation for losing 10% of the pension. 

The plaintiff pointed out that the basis for compensation is based on tort liability in accordance with the Civil Transactions Law, while the present presented on behalf of the defendant a reply memorandum requesting the dismissal of the case, because the plaintiff did not follow the path established by the law regarding the regulation of labor relations and the failure to hear the case due to the passage of time, and the court of first instance decided to reject the case With the plaintiff obligating the expenses. 

In the reasons for its refusal, the court clarified that the plaintiff demands compensation for material and moral damages for offending her or defamation and defamation of the end of service letter, noting that it was established in the papers that the plaintiff was working for the defendant and the latter terminated her services as indicated in the termination letter issued by the company The defendant, in which he stated the reason for terminating the plaintiff’s services, by referring to the gross violations “gross misconduct,” which included negligence, approved behavior or indifference that may cause financial losses to the company, gross negligence or indifference in performing tasks, and unauthorized absence for a period of more than 20 days Sporadic in one year or more than 7 consecutive days in one year, all of which do not contain indecent expressions as indicated by the plaintiff.

The court indicated that the defendant relied on the texts of the articles in which the plaintiff’s services were terminated, which is not an error in itself that justifies compensation, and therefore it is not possible to determine the error element in the compensation claim for abuse of the right, which is the minimum amount of notification issued by Haste, recklessness and lack of precaution, and with the collapse of the pillar of error, the rest of the pillars of responsibility collapse with it, and the same is necessary for the judiciary to reject the case. 

The plaintiff was not satisfied with this court, so she instituted her appeal under a newspaper, which ultimately requested the acceptance of the appeal in form and in the matter, by canceling the appealed judgment, and again judging her requests before the court of first instance, and obligating the appellant to pay expenses and attorney fees for both levels of litigation. 

For its part, the Court of Appeal clarified that the court of the first instance had been subjected to adjudication in the present litigation and decided to reject the case, and the appellant did not come up with a new defense before this court that would change the face of the opinion in the case, and it would not be affected by what was stated in its obituary from the reliance of the first court to the refusal of compensation for the first three items The imminent voluntary separation came to the conclusion of the labor court ruling that it was not entitlement to them on the basis that it was issued by a court that is not competent, noting that this obituary violates what is established according to the Evidence Law, and that the final judiciary has the power of the res judicata in what has been decided between the litigants. And when the judgment acquires this force, it refrains from returning to the discussion of the same issue in which it was issued, the same litigants in the case in which it was decided, even with legal or factual evidence that was not previously raised or raised and was not discussed by the judgment issued in it.

The court indicated that the papers did not indicate the bad intention of the respondent to use her right to harm the appellant, which is the matter with which the court of the first degree has examined the evidence presented to reach the conclusion it ruled, and its inference was correct, leading to the conclusion on which its judgment was built, which is what this court shares with it regarding It ended and the judgment of the court of the first degree upheld what it had concluded, and the court ruled to accept the appeal in form and in the matter by supporting the appealed judgment and obligated the appellant to expenses.

Follow our latest local and sports news and the latest political and economic developments via Google news