Skip to main content

VS explained how an employee to avoid dismissal for forced time off

It is impossible to dismiss an employee who has taken time off on urgent matters for absenteeism – such an explanation was made by the Supreme Court. The higher authority interceded for the woman whom the boss showed to the door only because she left for the funeral of a loved one.

It is important to consider all circumstances and past merits of the employee

A complaint from a resident of Tambov reached the Supreme Court. For many years, the woman worked in the local central market. Two years ago, an employee had a misfortune: a relative died in Moscow. Having learned about the tragedy, she asked the director for two days to go to the capital for the funeral. The boss ordered to write an application for unpaid leave and said that he would release the subordinate. The lady immediately told the whole team about the upcoming trip. In addition, she took the original of the application to the personnel department, and handed over a copy to the archives of the document specialist. Returning to work, the deputy director of the market learned the shocking news: she was fired for absenteeism. The chief backed down and said that he did not approve of any vacation at his own expense and did not release the employee from the workplace. The lady failed to challenge the dismissal in the courts. All instances concluded that the truth is on the employer’s side. He did not issue an order on granting leave, the employee did not familiarize herself with it against signature. This means that, as the judges decided, agreements with the boss do not work in words. However, the Supreme Court sided with the offended worker, returned the case for review and made an important clarification for those who are used to asking time off from work orally. As noted by the panel of supreme judges in their determination, the lower instances did not take into account the circumstances under which absenteeism was committed, if at all. It’s one thing if the employee just went out on a spree or decided to sleep until lunch. And it is quite different if he had to leave for a funeral or sit out at home because of poor health. At the same time, the Supreme Court recalled that according to the law, in the event of the death of close relatives, the employer, in principle, cannot refuse the employee a “funeral” leave. In all other cases, the courts should take into account all the employee’s past merits, the presence or absence of disciplinary offenses in his biography and his attitude to work in general. As pointed out by the Supreme Court, dismissal, even for absenteeism, should be chosen by the employer only as a last resort. It should be taken into account whether the employee has dependents: children, elderly parents or sick relatives.

A witness in the Sokolov case described the last evening with Yeshchenko

On October 26, the St. Petersburg City Court continued the interrogation of witnesses for the defense of the dismemberment historian Oleg Sokolov, who killed Anastasia Yeshchenko. This time Sokolov was “defended” by the teacher of labor and drawing Konstantin Yerunov and the actor Lepikhov. The actor, who was convicted of rape, tried to present evidence that Yevgeny Ponasenkov told him to beat Sokolov. Yerunov spoke about Yeshchenko’s inhospitableness.

The second person invited to the court described the threats of Ponasenkov

The teacher Konstantin Yerunov is fond of history, participated in historical reconstructions – along this line he has known Sokolov for more than thirty years. The teacher, like most of the witnesses for the defense, began by praising the defendant “A bright leader, a man who was respected, could always help.” According to him, the historian helped him when he had a difficult psychological period in his life. “They are with Anya (with ex-wife – “MK”) did not spare either time or money to get me out of this state, ”he said.

He saw Anastasia Yeshchenko from afar several times. And three or four days before the murder, they met in Sokolov’s apartment, where the teacher and his son came to visit.

“Anastasia sat a little to one side, moving away, and was more silent. The relationship between Oleg Valerievich and Anastasia surprised me very much. I have seen many women with him. Some were true hyenas, but there were also disinterested ones who became wives.

Anastasia strangely, apart, kept herself, when Oleg Valerievich tried to involve her in a conversation, she demonstratively gained distance. It seems as if she is pretending: who came here?

About some shrimps, she said: “No, we won’t put shrimps on the table.” There was a feeling that something was wrong here. The setting was not the most welcoming of her. I even had an idea to call Oleg Valerievich the next day, to talk to him separately. I still reproach myself – maybe if I had called the next day, something could have gone differently, ”Yerunov concluded.

Answering the question of the lawyer of the victims, the witness said that around Sokolov at different times he saw about two hundred women. “But how to count it? For example, ballerinas from the Mariinsky Theater come, he had a wonderful evening by candlelight, but there were no intimate connections there. ” The teacher and several of the historian’s wives found him, and he and his wife had close contact with Anna until the murder of Nastya Yeshchenko. After the “tragedy,” the dismemberment’s ex-wife closed for communication.

Then the court interrogated Alexander Lepikhov, an actor. He does not know Sokolov personally – which is strange for a witness. However, this did not prevent Lepikhov from arranging a real performance in the courtroom. And again it was about the conflict between Sokolov and the historian Ponasenkov.

“The case of Oleg Valerievich needs justice. The state in which the terrible crime was committed was created by hand. These are years of persecution, “he began …

– How do you know that? The judge asked.

– Because it’s true, it’s true. This is my conclusion.

– So you say that you don’t know Sokolov personally?

“I don’t know, but it’s not necessary.

– Do you know Ponasenkov?

As it turned out, Lepikhov is personally acquainted with Ponasenkov, they began to communicate in February 2018. “We became friends on Facebook and started communicating. Once I was driving with Evgeny Nikolaevich in his car on his business. He spoke on the phone: “Yes, yes, yes, it’s cool, be sure to let him go to his lecture, take my book, shake her, ask questions! I will thank him later, ”the actor said.

According to him, this was exactly the guy who was at the lecture of Oleg Sokolov, his name is Anton Kuzhim. Then Lepikhov said that Ponasenkov asked his entourage, assistants, including the actor, to call and complain about Oleg Valerievich at St. Petersburg State University.

“Personally, Evgeny Nikolayevich gave me texts that needed to be spoken on the phone,” he said. This was followed by a colorful sketch about Ponasenkov’s hatred of Sokolov: “Ponasenkov drank, ran around the apartment, shouted:“ Well, he will dance with me, he will play according to my script! ”

– Witness, do not forget that you are not in the theater! – the judge could not resist.

Then Lepikhov told an even more textured episode: “Ponasenkov asked me to gather a group of strong guys to go to St. Petersburg. It was necessary to catch the drunk Oleg Valerievich in the dark streets of Petersburg, beat him, put him on his knees and urinate on his face, record all this on video and send it to him. I don’t know for what purpose ”.

Then the witness decided to show his correspondence with Ponasenkov in the messenger.

– How does all this in principle relate to the murder of Anastasia Yeshchenko? – asked the lawyer of the victims.

As a result, the court refused to attach the printouts of the actor’s correspondence with Ponasenkov to the case, arguing that they were not relevant to the case. Then Sokolov spoke loudly from the “aquarium”: he asked to confirm that Ponasenkov had asked to beat him and use violence.

In the final, the actor suggested that Ponasenkov was an “agent of another country” because he posted videos on an American video platform – you must understand, on YouTube. Then he continued to talk about the personality of Ponasenkov, to which the judge proposed to stop this circus. “Witness, you have no right to give assessments, you must answer questions here!” Answering questions from the side of the victims, the witness admitted that he had been tried for causing grievous bodily harm and rape. “I was sentenced to two years. That was twelve years ago. ”

Then the actor promised to contact the Investigative Committee in order to achieve the initiation of a criminal case against Ponasenkov. Sokolov also expressed his hope. In the process of the murder of Nastya Yeshchenko, who seemed to have been completely forgotten in the heat of the dispute about Ponasenkov, the last witnesses of the defense are awaiting.

Exhausted by the case of the denunciation of nurses, the doctor wins in the Supreme Court

Citizens who have been unlawfully prosecuted can recover not only moral damage, but also compensation for damage to business reputation – this is the explanation given by the Supreme Court. This option is possible if the criminal case became a black mark on the resume and the person was unable to get a job again.

Sun explained how to get compensation for damage to business reputation

A doctor from Voronezh applied to the higher authority with a complaint. The woman worked for many years as the deputy chief physician of one of the city hospitals. In 2016, following a denunciation by two nurses, a criminal case was opened against her for abuse of office. The investigation dragged on for almost a year and a half, the case fell apart as a result and was dismissed for lack of corpus delicti. Then it was reopened, closed again – and so on four times.

From the nerves and health of the doctor to the moment when the investigators finally gave up, only one name remained. The woman went to court with a claim for compensation for moral damage. She estimated it at 600 thousand rubles. However, the Voronezh judges decided to curtail the doctor’s appetites and awarded her only 20 thousand. On appeal, the decision survived. The judges concluded that the physician could not count on more, because she was not in custody, but was under recognizance not to leave. But the Supreme Court found this amount ridiculous and returned the case for review.

“The court of first instance did not find out the severity of the physical and mental suffering inflicted on the plaintiff in connection with the unlawful criminal prosecution, did not give a proper legal assessment of such circumstances as the general duration of the preliminary investigation (16 months), the conduct of investigative actions with her participation, including a search in her home, and long stay in the status of a suspect, “- emphasized the Armed Forces in the definition.

Moreover, as the highest judges pointed out, the victim of an illegal criminal prosecution can also count on additional compensation for damage to his business reputation. The Collegium of the Armed Forces noted that the doctor lost her job due to a criminal case. Although she had worked in medicine for 31 years before the incident, she was repeatedly awarded for her diligent work. However, even after the case was closed, she was unable to re-enter the healthcare system, each time receiving refusals from potential employers.

The head of the pre-trial detention center, where Efremov is sitting, was sent to the women prisoners

Global personnel reshuffles have taken place in the capital’s pre-trial detention centers. Three famous Moscow “prisons” (as they are called by the people, although formally it is wrong) changed their bosses.

Personnel rotation has taken place in the leadership of the capital pre-trial detention centers

As it became known to “MK”, ​​the owner of the legendary “Butyrka” Sergey Telyatnikov has been retired. He headed SIZO # 2 for ten years, which is a lot for the FSIN system. Rumor has it that one of the reasons for the departure of the 56-year-old head of the detention center was the scandal associated with cells for life-sentenced prisoners. It held especially dangerous criminals, sentenced to capital punishment, during their stay in Moscow (for example, when considering a complaint in the Supreme Court). However, sometimes prisoners were placed in such cells for psychological treatment, from whom obedience and humility were required.

The head of Butyrka will now be the former head of the women’s detention center # 6, Andrei Shubin. He is known for bringing near-perfect order to a once not-so-good isolation ward. Thanks to Shubin’s “iron hand”, it became possible to open a building there for the detention of arrested crime bosses. Well, for the fair sex will be supervised by the ex-head of SIZO No. 5 Evgeny Dobrov. Now in this isolation ward, we recall, after the verdict, the actor Mikhail Efremov.