BGP Litigation's Labour Law practitioners represented Hyperglobus LLC, one of Russia's major grocery supermarket chains, as a defendant in an ex-employee reinstatement dispute.
The dispute arose following the termination of employment of the employee who had been working for the company for over 15 years. During further professional development discussions, the parties agreed to terminate the employment relations. The employee filed a voluntary resignation letter, handed his things over, joined a new employer and received all agreed-upon payments.
A month later, the employee filed a claim to the court asserting that he had be forced to leave the company due the psychological pressure brought upon him by the employer. In support of his case, he furnished the court with the audio recordings of the discussions, referred to witness testimony and claimed that the employer owed him certain extra work payments.
BGP Litigation's team, jointly with the employer, worked out a defence strategy to prove that the employee had resigned voluntarily. The defence party furnished the court with internal correspondence, documents confirming that selection of the grounds for dismissal and the terms of compensation had been initiated by the employee himself, and a copy of the exit interview questionnaire wherein he stated that he was leaving the company as he had found a new job and for professional development.
One of the key matters of the dispute was the employer's duty to explain to the employee the legal implications of his voluntary resignation. The recent case law proceeds from the assumption that in certain instances, non-existence of such an explanation may point at involuntariness of resignation. BGP Litigation's team, nonetheless, managed to prove that no such duty applied in this particular case, as the employee possessed the necessary knowledge of the labour law, realised the legal implications of his acts and made his own decision.
The courts of all three instances held that the dismissal was fair and noted that the employer acted in good-faith and the fact of the discussions between the parties gave no evidence of any psychological pressure or forced, or constructive, dismissal. The prosecutor's office upheld the employer's position as well.
This case is of practical interest for employers, as it reiterates that the duty to explain the legal implications of a voluntary dismissal is not absolute and depends on the particular circumstances of any individual case.
The project was implemented by BGP Litigation's
Labour Law practice team comprising Partner Anna Ivanova and Senior Associate Sophia Luneva.
