First observations on Article 32, paragraph I and II
" Article 32.
(Forfeiture and provisions on fixed-term employment contract)
1. The first and second paragraphs of Article 6 of Law July 15, 1966, No 604, are replaced by the following:
"The dismissal must be challenged under penalty of forfeiture within sixty days after receipt of a notice in writing, or communication, also in writing, of the reasons, if not simultaneously, by any written document, including the courts, such as to make known the will of the worker also through the direct intervention of the union to challenge the dismissal.
The appeal is ineffective unless it is followed by the next term of two hundred seventy days from filing the appeal in the clerk of the court on the basis of an employment tribunal or by notifying the other party's request to attempt to conciliation or arbitration firm precluding the possibility of producing new documents formed after the filing of the appeal.
If conciliation or arbitration required to be withheld or not reached the necessary agreement to its completion, the application should be submitted to the court under penalty of forfeiture within sixty days from the refusal or failure to agree. "
" 2. The provisions of Article 6 of Law July 15, 1966, No 604, as amended by paragraph 1 of this Article shall also apply to all cases of invalidity of the dismissal. "
* ° *
Article 32, new Article 6 of Law 604-1966, provides, in contrast to the previously existing provision, a two-term decadenziale accident on the entire area of \u200b\u200bthe dismissal invalid.
Given this forecast, there is, immediately prior to the interpreter, the problem of defining the area of \u200b\u200bdismissal invalid, because only through this pre-definition, it is possible to identify cases for which there, on pain of forfeiture, the burden of appeal and operating under the terms of the statutory threshold.
Certainly, in the opinion of the writer, the burden of appeal is not orally active in the event of dismissal notice, military, in support of this reading, two distinct topics:
1 - dismissal oral notice is, as is well known genus due to the inefficient, unproductive since it legal effect. The inefficiency term, which originally appeared in conjunction with the category of disability, in the original formulation of the standard, does not appear in the text of the law, here in a comment.
2 - The first paragraph dell’articolo 32 si riferisce espressamente ai licenziamenti comunicati in forma scritta, con conseguente inapplicabilità della norma e, indi, del doppio termine decadenziale, a tutti i casi in cui il licenziamento sia stato intimato verbalmente.
Risolto, positivamente, tale aspetto, resta irrisolto il problema dell’esatta individuazione dell’area dei licenziamenti invalidi.
A mio modo di vedere l’area dell’invalidità comprende non solo, i casi di licenziamento intimati per giusta causa o giustificato motivo ma anche, la categoria dei licenziamenti nulli, essendo l’area della nullità ricompresa in quella dell’invalidità.
Therefore, with the provision here under review must be challenged within 60 days (and then the appeal must be filed within 270 days, on pain of invalidity of the appeal itself) all zero redundancies, including given that intimate discriminatory grounds, for reasons of marriage or that intimate the worker in a state of gestation.
For these categories of licenses or, in the category of dismissal void and that intimacy for just cause and for good reason, should be paid by the worker, the greatest attention because, with effect from November 24 2010, will enter into force on the double decadenziale term of 60 to 270 days.
Otherwise, like the oral dismissal, is not subject to the new provision for dismissal of the case beyond the period of acting, dry or by summation (or time limit provided for in the various CCNL of legitimate absence from work due to illness), it is not classified in terms of objective justification.
Chambers. Vincenzo Caponera Retelegale Rome
0 comments:
Post a Comment