Case Study — Dismissal of Objection Against the Dismissal Decision
Brisc Cluj Attorney – Subject of the Labour Dispute
The Labour and Social Security Conflicts Section of the Cluj Tribunal rejected the objection filed by a former employee of a private courier company, by which he sought annulment of the disciplinary sanction decision through which his individual employment contract was terminated. He also requested that the company be ordered to pay compensation equal to indexed and updated salaries from the date of dismissal until final resolution of the case. Further, the former employee claimed payment for overtime hours alleged to have been worked from the start of employment until dismissal, as well as 50,000 lei in moral damages.
Background of the Labour Dispute
In fact, the claimant was employed under an indefinite individual employment contract as a courier. After two years, the company’s management was informed that the claimant had been absent from work without notifying or later explaining his absence, thus violating the internal regulations. Following the disciplinary investigation procedure, the employer applied the disciplinary sanction of dismissal, under the provisions of Article 248(1)(e) and Article 61(a) from the Labour Code.
Against the dismissal decision, the former employee submitted an objection to the Cluj Tribunal, requesting primarily its annulment. The employer, a courier company, as defendant, enlisted Brisc Legal’s labour litigation attorneys to present defenses leading to rejection of the claimant’s demands.
Court’s Decision
The court dismissed the request of the claimant to annul the disciplinary sanction as insufficiently substantiated. In particular, the factual description in the dismissal decision — absence from the workplace without prior notification or later excuse — was considered sufficiently clear without need for further detail to satisfy legality. The claimant did not identify what was missing from that description or how his rights were harmed thereby.
In his plea, the claimant also invoked the prescription (statute of limitations) of the employer’s right to impose a disciplinary sanction under Article 252(1) of the Labour Code, arguing that the sanction decision was issued beyond the mandatory 30-day period. Thanks to the defenses presented by Brisc Legal’s labour specialists, the court rejected that ground. The tribunal adhered to the interpretation by the High Court in Decision RIL 16/2012, which holds that the 30-day counting period starts when the final disciplinary report is filed in the employer’s registry, because until the investigation is finalized the alleged conduct cannot yet be qualified as a disciplinary offence.
Also in the same trial the former employee requested retroactive payment of 3 overtime hours per working day for the entire duration of employment, contending that by the nature of courier work he had to start at 07:00 for sorting and continue deliveries beyond 17:00, thus exceeding the contractual 8-hour shift. The court found that the employer had a flexible working schedule, allowing employees to schedule personal matters during certain intervals. It held that during delivery periods employees could manage personal tasks. The claimant himself used working hours to attend driving school, for instance.
Thus, the court determined that despite the time span from 07:00 to 17:15 exceeding 8 hours, this was due to the flexible schedule agreed, and these extra hours cannot legally count as work time under Article 111 of the Labour Code.
The claimant’s request for 50,000 lei in moral damages (claiming illegal dismissal) was also dismissed. The tribunal found he failed to provide credible evidence showing non-pecuniary harm from the alleged illicit conduct of the employer, so evaluation of such damages was not possible.
In conclusion, after the evidence and the defenses from Brisc Legal labour litigation attorneys, the former employee’s action was rejected in full in favor of the courier company.