On July 2, the Minsk Regional Court was to consider the appeal complaint of Ekaterina Keilis, a former employee of Minsk Dairy Factory No. 1.
In late November 2019, Ekaterina wrote an application on her unwillingness to continue labour relationships with her employer; and she was dismissed due to the expiration of the employment contract.
“During that November, before my dismissal, I had no claims from factory or workshop bosses; however, having received my salary check slip after dismissal, I found that I had not been paid part thereof, defined as the so-called ‘labour participation coefficient’ (LPC),” Ekaterina wrote in her complaint.
As a result, the former employer failed to BYN 200 to Ekaterina at final settlement.
She turned to the Minsk office of the independent REP Trade Union for help in defending her labour rights. She claimed the illegal reduction of the above coefficient and demanded to pay her the due money, as well as additional funds for the delay of the final settlement.
However, on May 5, the Minsk District Court refused to satisfy Ekaterina’s claims.
Her interests were represented by Igor Komlik, a legal inspector of the REP Trade Union:
“The dairy administration claims that there were complaints about Ekaterina’s work. But if a person is brought to disciplinary liability, then according to the Labour legislation, the person should be acquainted with the claims duly documented in the resolution, order or production logbook. After being acquainted with the claims, an employee has the right to challenge claims in the due order.
But in this case, all this was not done. Ekaterina learnt that she had been deprived of her surcharge under the LPC only after she received her pay slip. Earlier it was her constant surcharge. This was the reason for going to court. Unfortunately, in our opinion, the first-instance court made an unlawful and unjustified decision by refusing to satisfy the claim.
At the trial, the employer also failed any of the above documents; only a logbook was presented to the judge, where three violations allegedly committed by Ekaterina were recorded. Interestingly, all the three entries were made in one day. Besides, no reduction of the LPC was indicated. This should have attracted the attention of both the employer and the court. However, this didn’t happen. The court based its judgement only on witnesses’ testimonies, which, in our opinion, were also contradictory. We hope that the appeal court will more carefully and legally treat all the case details,” the trade union lawyer has concluded.