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.
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.