Between the end of the year and today, besides the Finance Act, there were a number of important judgments which have enshrined:
1) which is a crime to carry heavy tasks to the worker not suitable (Cass. No. 47085);
2) He made extortion that an employer who threatened to sack employees if they had not agreed to have a monthly salary less than that agreed (Cass.n. 48,868) ;
3) that the co.co.co. can not ask to be hired as an employee if the hierarchical power and leadership can be explained in simple guidelines general rather than specific orders, repeated and intrinsically related to work performance, that characterize the employee (Cass. No 26986) ;
4) The Lazio Regional Administrative Court (Case No. 13464) Instead it is divided into negative, with a questionable decision, perhaps even favored by lawyers who have failed to defend their rights. Despite the law establishing the commission specifically exempted from the competition of trade unionists, the administrative justice of the Lazio gave wrong to an employee: the Tar argues that the only two facts are challenged by an unsuccessful candidate of the union representative was not chosen for professional merits or that his activities "could interfere" with the entity that issued the competition. Not only that, a further substantial injustice has been done, that when a worker was also told that "the candidates" legitimately "disabled can not challenge the list "for non-exclusion" of another competitor for his ouster, "he could not get any real benefit.
Bah!
0 comments:
Post a Comment