Russia (bbabo.net), - Employees whose duties are outsourced should be fired under the same conditions as employees who are fired due to redundancy. This conclusion was reached by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, having studied the complaint of Andrey Peshkov from the Murmansk region.
The corresponding document is published on the 10th page. This is what was in Andrey Peshkov's complaint to the Constitutional Court. Since 2015, he has been working in the branch of the Center for Ensuring the Activities of the Treasury of Russia in the Murmansk Region. His position was called "worker for the maintenance and repair of buildings." The place of work was the city of Olenegorsk. And then - Murmansk.
But in 2020, the functions to serve the buildings of the center were outsourced. Peshkov was offered to move to the Karelian city of Kem or to a village in the Arkhangelsk region. Then he was offered a job in St. Petersburg. You can be a janitor, or you can be a commandant. He did not agree, and he was fired under Article 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation "Refusal to continue work due to changes in the terms of the contract."
Andrei Peshkov did not agree with the article. He was sure that he should have been fired for downsizing. But the courts sided with the employer. So the dispute reached the Constitutional Court.
The Constitutional Court considered Article 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation not inconsistent with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, because it "does not imply a unilateral change by the employer of the terms of the employment contract on the place of work of the employee determined by the parties in connection with the conclusion by the employer with a third party of a civil law contract that excludes the possibility of the employee fulfilling his previous work in the same separate structural unit, and also do not imply the dismissal of such an employee in case of his refusal to work in another locality.
Peshkov did not agree with the article. He was sure that he should have been fired due to staff reduction
“The dismissal is based not on the will of the employee who refused to continue working in the new conditions, but on the impossibility of providing such an employee with the labor function that is stipulated by the contract concluded with him,” the Constitutional Court said.
In the opinion of the higher court, this employee is in the same position as the employee whose position was reduced. After all, for both there is no work for reasons not related to their personal desire or behavior. The case of Andrei Peshkov is subject to review.
bbabo.Net