Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared for your interview:
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the dismissal of an employee in connection with a refusal to continue working due to a change in essential working conditions and the determination of the appropriate method for the protection of violated labor rights.
2. The Supreme Court sitting as the Joint Chamber departed from its own previous position (set forth in case No. 308/9448/21), according to which courts could compel an employer to reinstate an employee to an “equivalent position” or to make amendments to the staffing table. The Court emphasized that reinstatement in employment means returning the employee specifically to the position that they held prior to the unlawful dismissal, and not to any other. Interference by the court in the formation of the staffing table is inadmissible, as this is the exclusive discretionary competence of the employer. The Court confirmed that in the event of a reorganization of an institution that resulted in the elimination of a position, the dismissal must be carried out according to the staff reduction procedure (Art. 40 of the Labor Code), and not due to a refusal to accept a change in essential working conditions. Since the employer did not comply with the guarantees during the staff reduction, the dismissal was recognized as unlawful. The Court also confirmed the employee’s right to receive average earnings for the entire period of forced absenteeism, provided that the delay in the consideration of the case was not the fault of the employee themselves.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, amending the court decisions regarding the method of reinstating the employee and excluding instructions to lower courts to create new positions or make amendments to the staffing table.
