In the case at hand, the complainant, after taking up a senior position in her employment, made an organisational change in the structure of the organisation which was intended to lead to its streamlining and cost savings. On the basis of that change, she then gave several dismissals to employees, some of whom defended themselves against that action. As a result of the lost legal proceedings, the organisation incurred costs, part of which, amounting to CZK 357 275, it claimed from the complainant. The employee’s liability for damages eventually ended up in court.
The lower courts pointed out that it was primarily the individual terminations, and not the initial organisational change, that were the harmful events. Each situation was therefore assessed individually, as was the subsequent compensation to the employer.
Are you solving a similar problem?
Are you dealing with a legal issue related to employer's compensation?
Employee liability for damages is often a tricky subject. Describe your concerns to us, our attorney will review your case and propose a specific solution within 48 hours.
I want to help you solve your problem
- When you order, you know what you will get and how much it will cost.
- We handle everything online or in person at one of our 4 offices.
- We handle 8 out of 10 requests within 2 working days.
- We have specialists for every field of law.
The Constitutional Court pointed out the deficiencies in the previous court proceedings, when on the one hand the statements were considered as separate damage events, but at the same time the complainant was found to be at fault in the incorrectly implemented organizational change, which was, from their point of view, purposeful and carelessly prepared.
According to the Constitutional Court, it is necessary to consistently prove how the misconduct and breach of duty actually occurred, thus distinguishing between two possible situations:
- The culpability may consist of individual statements that may have been hypothetically written or made in violation of the law. The previous organisational change is then no longer assessed and the individual cases can indeed be dealt with separately.
- If, on the other hand, the real substance of the misconduct was the organisational change that had taken place and the illegality of the statements was merely a consequence of that change, then the complainant’s misconduct must be regarded as a single act for which she should also bear a single consequence. In such a case, the employer’s compensation limit set by the Labour Code at four and a half times the average wage would therefore apply to her.
However, the general courts erred in combining the two approaches, essentially finding one misconduct but linking several individual consequences and ‘penalties’ to it. As a result, the employer’s damages in aggregate exceeded the statutory limit. Do you know what workers’ compensation liability applies to your position?
