Over the years, jurisprudence has resolved disputes between companies and employers numerous times Dismissal. The law, as we know, provides for several types of withdrawal and – in particular – disciplinary brings together a series of practical cases, which, due to the absence of its element, hinder the experience of work. can lead to confidence.
Harassment, mobbing, physical attacks, theft of company assets and more: In various situations a company can protect itself and fire an employee who violates the obligations of diligence, loyalty and good faith and basic principles of civil coexistence. does not respect Today – with the widespread spread of Social network – It is very easy to express one’s opinion on a wide range of topics, and even one’s work environment can become the “target” of criticism, snide comments or genuine accusations in a digital format.
Recently A court of law has again ruled on a dismissal challenge, stating that an employee who — on a social network such as Facebook – Is the author of a written libel against his employer. But this is subject to a certain condition.
Let us know what it is by looking together at the facts of the dispute and the decision of the Judges of Piazza Cavour in Ordinance No. 1. 26446 from a few weeks ago.
Case
The case on which the Supreme Court decision was based concerned a woman who chose to fight the law in court. Disciplinary Dismissal The company on its part considered the heaviest sanction appropriate considering the fact that the employee had written insulting, offensive and defamatory phrases on his FB profile – towards the employer company and especially its CEO. The woman was accused of contempt (one of the cases of immediate dismissal) and defamation through social networks.
After an unfavorable first instance, the woman appealed. Here the judges found his pleas well-founded, on the assumption that the comment – a post on the internet – was written out of anger caused by unfair and illegal practices caused by others. According to the details, the woman had targeted him. Injuries After the spread of Harmful substances In the office of the company where he worked. This contamination included the husband, who was intoxicated with other people.
As may be read in Ordinance no. 26446, the employee actually worked in a building which – apart from being the workplace of administrative employees – water treatment plant. Earlier the staff had repeatedly reported the health hazards, but without getting any proper response. Thus, first the harmful incident happened and then the woman’s harsh comments on Facebook.
We read in the Court’s provision that, after the event, which had previously occurred:
From a long line of worker complaints about the health of the building area
The controversial post that led to the attack was published on Facebook. Termination of Employee.
The appellate judgment set aside the dismissal, ordered the reinstatement of the woman and ordered the recognition of compensatory allowance in her favor and regularization of the assistant position.
Importance of reason to justify “provocation”.
The company challenged the decision and went to court. However, KOrdinance No. 26446 has – essentially – accepted the outcome of the previous level of judgment. In his text we can actually read that:
- If an employee’s conduct constitutes an offense – in this case Crime through the Internet ie the offense of defamation – it is the duty of the Labor Judge to shed light on the existence of the offense itself in all its elements, but also on its possible existence, even in the absence of a criminal conviction. Reasons for justification That they can “save” us from guilt.
- As the Appellate Judges have rightly held, the justification set out in the Annexure applies to labor disputes as well.‘Art. 599 of the Pakistan Penal Code. It precludes the imposition of criminal sanctions for conduct that is implemented as a direct and immediate consequence. Unfair and illegal actions of others.
Especially in art. 599 – with the symbolic title “Incitement” – reads:
Any person who commits any of the acts provided for under Article 595 in a state of anger on account of the unjust act of another, and immediately thereafter, is not punishable.
If art. 595 Defamation is punished in Art. 599 is instead described as genuine. Grounds for Exemption from PunishmentOften defamatory words are spoken immediately after and as a result of being the victim of an unfair act.
What did the court decide?
For the judges of the Piazza Cavour the reason for justification or exculpation is quite clear in the case in question. Woman, agitated by a recent accident and in the grip of a Stress and emotional distressFired immediately after the crime was committed – intoxication of some employees due to insufficient safety measures taken by the company. For the employee, in fact, harm to colleagues could have been avoided if the situation had occurred Environmental degradation The case was not underestimated by the other party.
Specifically, the judges recognized that the worker’s behavior, although aggressive and disciplinary-related, was attributable to “resentment” due to the serious work situation and the emotional state created by the spouse’s injury.
Applying the aforementioned article of the Penal Code – and therefore the exemption from “provocation” – with the Court of Cassation.Ordinance No. 26446 Rejected an appeal brought by the company against the second-degree punishment, reiterating the groundlessness of the disciplinary dismissal imposed on the worker, the author of the scathing comment on his Facebook profile.
The Court of Cassation thus upheld the decision of the appellate judges, dismissing the company’s appeal and ordering the woman to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Furthermore, the alleged non-existent ViolationBecause the offending sentences were not, in fact, attributable to failure to comply with instructions or refusal to obey orders.
What changes?
With the Ordinance referred to above, Court of Cassation Reiterated that each dispute relating to dismissal represents a case in itself and must be considered in its concrete circumstances. It also established that an employee who offends an employer on Facebook cannot be fired. However, saving work is possible only when the writing process is done. Offensive and harmful comments is a direct and immediate consequence of a crime previously committed by the company.
As mentioned, the law is also considered applicable to the work process. Reason for justification of provocationcalled in Art. 599 of the Pakistan Penal Code. Thus the woman kept her job and salary.
At the same time, the ordinance sets an interesting jurisprudential precedent, always on hot and sensitive topics such as disciplinary dismissals, emotional reactions, worker agitations and the use of social media and websites to express comments, positive or negative. your company.
