Tag Archives: Ethiopian labour law

በስራ ላይ የሚደርስ አደጋ–የሰበር ውሳኔዎች ዳሰሳ


በስራ ላይ የሚደርስ አደጋ–የሰበር ውሳኔዎች ዳሰሳ
1. መግቢያ

በአሰሪና ሰራተኛ ግንኙነት ዋነኛ ከሚባሉት የአሰሪ ግዴታዎች ውስጥ አንዱ ከስራው ጋር በተያያዘ የሰራተኛውን ደህንነትና ጤንነት ለመጠበቅና ከአደጋ ለመከላከል የሚያስፈልጉትን እርምጃዎች ሁሉ መውሰድ ይገኝበታል፡፡ ግዴታው በአዋጁ አንቀጽ 12(4) ላይ በጥቅሉ የተቀመጠ ሲሆን በአንቀጽ 92 ላይ ደግሞ ግዴታዎቹ በዝርዝር ተቀምጠው ይገኛሉ፡፡ በእርግጥ ከሙያ ደህንነት፤ ጤንነትና የስራ አካባቢ ጋር በተያያዘ ግዴታ የተጣለው በአሰሪው ላይ ብቻ ሳይሆን በሰራተኛውም ላይ ጭምር ነው፡፡ (አዋጅ ቁ. 377/96 አንቀጽ 13(4) (5) እና አንቀጽ 93)
ሰራተኛው ሆነ አሰሪው በህግ የተጣለባቸውን ግዴታ ቢወጡም ያልተጠበቀ አደጋ መድረሱ አይቀሬ ነው፡፡ በስራ ላይ በሚደርስ አደጋ ሰራተኛው ጉዳት ሲደርስበት የአሰሪና ሰራተኛ ህጉ ጉዳት የደረሰበት ሰራተኛ እንደ ጉዳቱ መጠን እንዲካስ ከሞተም በስሩ የነበሩ ጥገኞች ክፍያ እንዲከፈላቸው በአሰሪው ላይ ግዴታ ይጥላል፡፡
ህጉ በፍርድ ቤቶች ተፈጻሚ ሲደረግ በስራ ላይ የሚደርስ አደጋ ትርጉምና የተፈጻሚነቱ ወሰን፤ የአሰሪው ኃላፊነት፤ የአካል ጉዳት ምንነትና መጠን፤ የጉዳት መጠን ደረጃ እና የካሳ ስሌት በተመለከተ የህግ ትርጉም የሚሹ ጥያቄዎች ይነሳሉ፡፡ ይህ ዳሰሳም የሰበር ችሎት በስራ ላይ የሚደርስ አደጋን በተመለከተ በምን መልኩ የህግ ትርጉም እንደሰጠ የሚቃኝ ይሆናል፡፡ Continue reading →

About these ads

ሰበር ውሳኔ የሰጠበት ህግ ‘ሲሻር’ የውሳኔው የአስገዳጅነት ውጤት


ሰበር ውሳኔ የሰጠበት ህግ ‘ሲሻር’ የውሳኔው የአስገዳጅነት ውጤት

የፌደራል ጠቅላይ ፍርድ ቤት የሰበር ችሎት ውሳኔ በስር ፍርድ ቤቶች ላይ የአስገዳጅነት ውጤት እንዲኖረው በህግ የተደነገገው በ1997 ዓ.ም. ሲሆን የሰበር ችሎት የዚህን አዋጅ መውጣት ተከትሎ በሰበር ስልጣኑ የሚሰጣቸው ውሳኔዎች በፌደራልና በክልል የስር ፍርድ ቤቶች ላይ የአስገዳጅነት ውጤት አግኝተዋል፡፡ ሆኖም በአዋጅ ቁ 454/1997 ላይ የድንጋጌ ለውጥ ሳይኖር የአንድ አዋጅን መሻር ተከትሎ በሰበር ትርጉም የተሰጠበት ውሳኔ የሚኖረው ህጋዊ ውጤት በህጉ አፈፃፀም ላይ በተግባር የሚያጋጥም ችግር ሆኗል፡፡

በእርግጥ ሰበር ትርጉም የሰጠበት ህግ ተሸሮ ትርጉም የተሰጠበት ድንጋጌም ቀሪ ወይም ውጤት የሌለው በሚሆንበት ጊዜ ውሳኔውም ያለ አንዳች ቅድመ-ሁኔታ ለቀጣይ ተመሳሳይ ጉዳዮች የአስገዳጅነት ውጤት ሊኖረው እንደማይችል ግልጽ ነው፡፡ ለምሳሌ አዋጅ ቁጥር 639/2001 ለባንክ ወይም ለአነስተኛ የፋይናንስ ተቋም ብድር መያዣነት የተሰጠ የማይንቀሳቀስ ንብረትን የሚመለከት ውል በፍርድ ቤት መዝገብ ወይም ስልጣን በተሰጠው አዋዋይ ፊት መፈረም እንደማያስፈልገው በመደንገግ በፍትሐ ብሔር ህግ ቁጥር 1723 ስር የተመለከተውን ቅድመ-ሁኔታ በከፊል ቀሪ አድርጎታል፡፡ ስለሆነም የሰበር ችሎት ከዚህ አዋጅ መውጣት በፊት የፍትሐ ብሔር ህግ ቁጥር 1723ን መሰረት በማድረግ ለባንክ ወይም ለአነስተኛ የፋይናንስ ተቋም ብድር መያዣነት የተሰጠ የማይንቀሳቀስ ንብረትን የሚመለከት ውልን በመተርጎም የሰጣቸው ውሳኔዎች በስር ፍርድ ቤቶች የአስገዳጅነት ውጤት አይኖራቸውም ማለት ነው፡፡

ይሁን እንጂ አንዳንድ ጊዜ አንድ አዋጅ ሙሉ በሙሉ ተሽሮ በአዲስ አዋጅ ሲተካ በተሻረው አዋጅና በአዲሱ አዋጅ የሚገኙ የተወሰኑ ድንጋጌዎች ምንም ዓይነት የይዘት ለውጥ አይደረግባቸውም፡፡ ለዚህ ጥሩ አብነት የሚሆነን የአሰሪና ሰራተኛ አዋጅ ቁጥር 42/85 በ377/96 መተካት ነው፡፡ ምንም እንኳን አዋጅ ቁጥር 42/85 በ377/96 የተሻረ ቢሆንም በቀድሞው አዋጅ ላይ የነበሩ ብዙ ድንጋጌዎች ምንም ዓይነት የይዘት ለውጥ አልተደረገባቸውም፡፡ ለምሳሌ የአዋጁን የተፈጻሚነት ወሰን የሚመለቱ ድንጋጌዎች፤ የስራ ውል አመሰራረትን የሚመለከቱ ድንጋጌዎች፤ የስራ ውል የሚቆይበትን ጊዜ አስመልክቶ የተቀመጡ ድንጋጌዎች (አዲስ ንዑስ አንቀጾች ከመጨመራቸው ውጪ የቀድሞ ድንጋጌዎች አልተቀየሩም) እንዲሁም ሌሎች ብዙ ድንጋጌዎች ይዘታቸው አልተቀየረም፡፡

እዚህ ላይ ጥያቄ ይነሳል፡፡ የይዘት ለውጥ ባልተደረገበት አንቀጽ ላይ አዋጅ ቁጥር 42/85ን መሰረት በማድረግ በሰበር የተሰጠ ውሳኔ አዋጁ በ377/96 ከተሻረ በኋላም የአስገዳጅነት ውጤት አለው?

በዚህ ነጥብ ላይ የሰበር ችሎት በሁሉም ዓይነት የስራ ክርክር፤ የፍትሐብሔር፤ የወንጀልና ሌሎች ጉዳዮች ላይ ወጥ በሆነ መልኩ ተፈፃሚነት ያለው ውሳኔ ያልሰጠ ቢሆንም የአሰሪና ሰራተኛ ጉዳይን በተመለከተ ግን በከፊልም ቢሆን ምላሽ ሰጥቶበታል፡፡ ስለሆነም በአዋጅ ቁጥር 42/85 መሰረት የተሰጠ የሰበር ውሳኔ አዋጅ ቁጥር 377/96 ከወጣ በኃላ በአዲሱ አዋጅ መሰረት የሚነሱ የስራ ክርክሮች ላይ የሚኖረውን ህጋዊ ውጤት በከፊልም ቢሆን ምላሽ ያገኘ ይመስላል፡፡

በሐመረ ወርቅ ቅ/ማሪያም ቤተክርስቲያን ሰበካ ጉባኤ ጽ/ቤት እና እነ ዲያቆን ምህረተ ብርሐን (6 ሰዎች) (የሰ.መ.ቁ.18419 ግንቦት 4 ቀን 1998 ዓ.ም) በነበረው የአሰሪና ሰራተኛ ክርክር ሰበር ችሎቱ የተያዘውን ጉዳይ ብቻ አስመልክቶ እንዳለው አዋጅ ቁጥር 42/85 በአዋጅ ቁጥር 377/96 የተሻረ ቢሆንም ነጥቡን በሚመለከት ሁለቱ አዋጆች አንድ አይነት ድንጋጌዎችን የያዙ በመሆኑ ችሎቱ የአዋጅ ቁጥር 42/85 ድንጋጌዎችን መሰረት አድርጎ በተጠቀሰው ነጥብ ላይ የሰጠው የህግ ትርጉም ለአዋጅ ቁጥር 377/96 ድንጋጌዎችም አግባብነት ያለው ነው፡፡

ወደ ስራ በመመለስ ፋንታ ካሳ ከፍሎ ማሰናበት፡ የሰበር ውሳኔዎች ዳሰሳ


ወደ ስራ በመመለስ ፋንታ ካሳ ከፍሎ ማሰናበት፡ የሰበር ውሳኔዎች ዳሰሳ

1.  መግቢያ

በአሰሪና ሰራተኛ አዋጅ ቁጥር 377/96 አንቀጽ 43(3) እንደተደነገገው ከህግ ውጭ የስራ ውሉ የተቋረጠበት ሰራተኛ ወደ ስራ የመመለስ ጥያቄ በግልጽ ቢያቀርብም ጉዳዩን የሚያየው የስራ ክርክሮችን የሚወስነው አካል ጥያቄውን ባለመቀበል ካሳ ተከፍሎት እንዲሰናበት ማዘዝ ይችላል፡፡ ይህም የሚሆነው ከስራ ግንኙነቱ ጠባይ የተነሳ የስራ ግንኙነቱ ቢቀጥል ከፍተኛ ችግር ያስከትላል ብሎ ከታመነ ነው፡፡ ትዕዛዙ ዋናው ክርክር በሚታይበት ጊዜ ብቻ ሳይሆን በአፈጻጸም ወቅትም ሊሰጥ ይችላል፡፡

ለመሆኑ ይህን መሰሉ ትዕዛዝ ለመስጠት አሳማኝ የሆኑት ሁኔታዎች ምንድናቸው? በሰበር ችሎት በኩል ያለው አቋምስ ምን ይመስላል? እነዚህን ጥያቄዎች የሰበር ውሳኔዎችን መሰረት በማደረግ በአጭሩ እንዳስሳለን፡፡

2.  መለኪያው

የአሰሪና ሰራተኛ አዋጅ ቁጥር 377/96 አንቀጽ 43(3) ድንጋጌ ሊተረጎም የሚገባው “በአንድ በኩል የሰራተኛውን የስራ ዋስትና በሌላ በኩል ደግሞ የኢንዱስትሪን ሰላም በማመዛዘን ሊሆን ይገባዋል፡፡ በመሆኑም ሰራተኛው ወደ ስራ መመለሱ የአሰሪውን ስራ በከፍተኛ ደረጃ ሊጎዳ የሚችል መሆኑ ካልተረጋገጠ በቀር ሰራተኛው በሆነው ባልሆነው ከስራ እንዲሰናበት ማድረጉ ተገቢ አይሆንም” (አዲስ አበባ ሂልተን ሆቴል እና አቶ ዘላለም መንግስቱ ሰ/መ/ቁ 55189 ሰኔ 30 ቀን 2002 ዓ.ም. ቅጽ 9)

ሰበር ችሎት በሌላ ውሳኔው (የአብጃታ ሶዳ አሽ አክሲዮን ማህበር እና ወ/ሮ ማርታ አበበ ሰ/መ/ቁ. 82336 ጥር 20 ቀን 2005 ዓ.ም. ቅጽ 14) ላይ እንዳመለከተው የድንጋጌው መንፈስ ከአሰሪና ሰራተኛ ህግ አጠቃላይ ዓላማና በኢ.ፌ.ዲ.ሪ. ህገ-መንግስት አንቀጽ 42 ስር ከተቀመጠው ድንጋጌ አንጻር ተዳምሮ ሲታይ እንደሚያስገነዝበው አንቀጽ 43(3) ተግባራዊ ሲደረግ የስራ ዋስትና ዋጋ በማያጣበት አግባብ ሊከናወን ይገባዋል፡፡

መለኪያውን ከማስቀመጥ ባሻገር የስራ ክርክሮችን የሚወስነው አካል ድንጋጌውን ተፈጻሚ ሲያደርግ የስራ ግንኙነቱ ከፍተኛ ችግር ውስጥ ይወድቃል ብሎ ማመኑ ብቻ በቂ አይደለም፡፡ ከዚህ ባለፈ የስራ ግንኙነቱ ከፍተኛ ችግር ውስጥ ይወድቃል ብሎ ለማመን የሚያስችል በቂ ምክንያት ሊኖረው ይገባል፡፡ (የጎሽና እርግብ መለስተኛና አነስተኛ የሕዝብ ማመላለሻ ባለንብረቶች ማህበር እና አቶ ተሰማ ኃይሉ ሰ/መ/ቁ. 49931 ሚያዝያ 21 ቀን 2002 ዓ.ም. ቅጽ 9) በችሎቱ ውሳኔ ላይ እንደተመለከተው “ያለ በቂ ማስረጃና ምክንያት አሰሪው የስራ ግንኙነቱ ችግር ላይ ሊወድቅ ይችላል ብሎ ስለተከራከረ ብቻ ድንጋጌውን ተግባራዊ ማድረግ የስራ ዋስትናን ጥያቄ ውስጥ የሚያስገባ ይሆናል፡፡” Continue reading →

Legal effect of absence of termination notice: Summary of Cassation decisions


Legal effect of absence of termination notice: Summary of Cassation decisions

 

Introduction

An employment contract irrespective of its duration may be legally terminated with notice provided one of the grounds in article 28 of the labour proclamation is present. Merely giving notice in the absence of a valid ground does not make the termination lawful. This being the case, what will be the legal effect of termination with a valid ground (Article 28) but without notice? The common understanding is that the legal effect of absence of notice of termination is only payment in lieu of notice, but does not make the termination unlawful. The cassation bench has also affirmed such common understanding in its decision. (Altabe College Vs. Seid Mohammed Cassation File Number 39580 Ginbot 18-2001 E.C.) As a result a worker will not be entitled to reinstatement or compensation and severance pay.

However, a question may be raised when one reads article 41 of the labour proclamation. Article 41 of labour proclamation No.377/96:

“Where an employer or a worker fails to comply with the requirements laid down in this Proclamation or other relevant law regarding termination, the termination shall be unlawful.” Continue reading →

Proof of dismissal: Summary of Cassation decisions


Proof of dismissal: Summary of Cassation decisions

Introduction

A worker claiming unlawful dismissal is not required to prove that his dismissal is contrary to the labour proclamation no.377/2006. Once the claim is submitted by the worker, the burden of proving the legality of the dismissal lies on the employer. This being the case, the worker has to prove the very existence of dismissal (if it is denied by the employer) in order to shift the burden of proving its legality to the employer. Dismissal signifies an act or measure taken by an employer. When the employer denies that he has not taken this measure, it is up to the worker to prove that he has been actually dismissed by the employer. An interpretation of the law by the Cassation bench in this regard clearly shows that the burden of proving the existence of dismissal lies on the worker. (China Road and Bridge Construction Enterprise Vs. Ato Girma Bushera, Cassation File No. 57541 Hidar 14-2003 E.C. (Cassation Decisions Volume 11)

Distinction between resignation, constructive dismissal and dismissal

Resignation is a personal and voluntary act of the worker to terminate his employment contract. According to article 31 of the labour proclamation No. 377/2006 a worker has unlimited freedom to terminate his employment contract any time even in the absence of a valid ground. The only procedural requirement is giving prior notice of thirty days to the employer. A worker resigning without notice will be liable to pay compensation. According to article 45 sub article 2 of the labour proclamation this compensation could not exceed thirty days wage of the worker. Continue reading →

Regional Civil Servants Laws and Directives


Addis Ababa Administration

Addis Ababa Administration Civil servants Proclamation No. 6-2000 E.C. DOWNLOAD

የአዲስ አበባ ከተማ አስተዳደር የመንግሥት ሠራተኞች አዋጅ ቁጥር 6/2ዐዐዐ

Addis Ababa Administration Civil Servants Disciplinary and Grievance Procedure Directive DOWNLOAD

በአዲስ አበባ ከተማ አስተዳደር የመንግስት ሠራተኞች የዲሲፕሊንና የቅሬታ አቀራረብ አፈጻጸምና መመሪያ

Addis Ababa Administration Permanent Employees Recruitment Procedure Directive DOWNLOAD

የአዲስ አበባ ከተማ አስተዳደር የቋሚ መንግስት ሠራተኞች የቅጥር አፈጻጸም መመሪያ

Harari National Regional State

Harari National Regional State Civil Servants Proclamation No.34-1996 E.C.  DOWNLOAD

የሐረሪ ህዝብ ብሔራዊ ክልላዊ መንግስት የመንግስት ሰራተኞች አዋጅ ቁጥር 34-19996

Rights and  Benefits  of  Outgoing  Senior  Government Officials,  Members  of  Parliament  and  Judges  of the  Harari National  Regional  State Proclamation (Amendment) No. 93-2002 E.C.  DOWNLOAD

Amhara National Regional State

Proclamation No. 171 /2010  The Amhara National Regional State Civil  Servants  Revised Proclamation  DOWNLOAD

Regulation no.18.2004 the Civil Servants Screening Council of Regional government Regulation    DOWNLOAD

Regulation no.35.2005 the Civil Servants’ Screening Regulation Amendment DOWNLOAD

Rights and  Benefits  of  Outgoing  Senior  Government Officials,  Members  of  Parliament  and  Judges  of the  Amhara  National  Regional  State Proclamation No. 172/2010  DOWNLOAD

Amhara Natioal Regional State Revenue Authority Employees Administration Regulation DOWNLOAD

Amhara National Regional State Revenue Authority Employees Ethical Code of Conduct Directive No. 1-2003 E.C. DOWNLOAD

የአማራ ብሔራዊ ክልላዊ መንግስት የገቢዎች ባለስልጣን የስነ-ምግባር መመሪያ ቁጥር 1-2003

Amhara National Regional State Civil Servants Job Performance Evaluation Directive     DOWNLOAD

የአማራ ብሔራዊ ክልላዊ መንግስት የመንግስት ሰራተኞች የስራ አፈጻጸም ምዘና መመሪያ

Dire Dawa Administration

Dire Dawa Civil Servants Proclamation    DOWNLOAD

Dire Dawa Administration Job Grade Determination and Assignment for Sector Agencies and Kebele Administrations Implementing BPR    DOWNLOAD

በድሬዳዋ አስተዳደር መሰረታዊ የስራ ሂደት ለውጥ ጥናት ላካሄዱ የአስተዳደሩ ሴክተር መስሪያ ቤቶችና ቀበሌዎች ውስጥ የተፈፈቀዱ የስራ መደቦች የስራ ምደባና ደረጃ አወሳሰን አፈጻጸም መመሪያ

Conflict of Laws in Labour and civil cases


Conflict of Laws in Labour and civil cases

In a conflict of law case, a court is expected to address three basic issues:

  1. Determining the presence  judicial jurisdiction
  2. Determining the applicable law to solve the dispute
  3. Determining whether a foreign judgment should be given recognition by domestic courts

Before these three issues are addressed, the court is primarily tasked with determining whether the case is really a conflict of law case or not?

So, how does a case become a conflict of law case? A short to the question is that it becomes a conflict of law case, it contains a foreign element. What then is a foreign element?

“When a case is said to contain a foreign element, the reference(s) may be of three natures __ personal, local, or material __ in that, respectively illustrated, if one of the parties of the case is a foreigner (including one from another federating unit) or the transaction of any nature took place, totally or partially, abroad (outside the forum state) or, finally, the object of the dispute (property, esp. immovable property) is situated in another state (including a member of federation); the case is said to contain a foreign element.” (Araya Kebede and Sultan Kasim, Conflict of laws teaching material, sponsored by Justice and Legal System Research Institute)

The draft conflict of rules also defines foreign element in the following way.

Art.4. Foreign Element

Foreign element refers to:

  1. A personal nature and may pertain to nationality, domicile or residence of the interested parties; or
  2. A local nature and may pertain to the place where facts occur or contracts are made from which the juridical situation arises; or
  3. A material nature and may pertain to the place where the property to which the juridical situation applies is situated.

According to article 11 sub article 2 (a) of Federal Courts Proclamation No. 25/1996, when a case is related to private international law, the Federal High Court will have first instance jurisdiction to solve the dispute. This article is not a conflict of law rule regarding judicial jurisdiction in conflict of law cases. It simply gives exclusive material jurisdiction to the Federal High Court, to address the above three questions of conflict of law disputes. What follows is a brief summary of the way this article is understood by lower courts and the cassation bench.

1.   Conflict of laws in labour cases

1.1.        Determining the governing law by the agreement of the parties

 

Applicant: Foundation Africa

Respondent: Ato Alemu Tadesse

Cassation File Number: 50923

Date: 19-9-2003 (E.C.)

An employment contract between the employee and employer made in Ethiopia, for a work to be performed in Ethiopia, stipulating a foreign law to govern any dispute arising between them is invalid. The presence of such contract does not oust the ordinary material jurisdiction of first instance court in labour disputes.

In a similar case, [C.A.S. Consulting engineers salezgiter GMBH vs. Ato Kassahun Teweledeberhan Cassation File Number 54121 Date 1-3-2003 (E.C.)] where the parties indicated German Law to be the applicable law to solve their disputes, it was held that such contractual provision is not valid. The case by its nature is not a case “regarding private international law” as provided in article 11 sub article 2 (a) of Federal Courts Proclamation No. 25/1996. As a result, it is the Federal First Instance Court not the Federal High Court who has jurisdiction over such matter.

1.2.        Employment contract made in a foreign country

Applicant: Ato Bezabeh Eshetu

Respondent: Salini construction

Cassation File Number: 60685

Date: 21-6-2003 (E.C.)

When the employment contract is made in a foreign country, it is a case regarding private international law. Hence, the Federal High Court will have first instance jurisdiction as per article 11 sub article 2 (a) of Federal Courts Proclamation No. 25/1996. But, it should be noted that, this does not imply Ethiopian courts will assume judicial jurisdiction merely because the contract was made in a foreign country. The fact that a certain case is a ‘case regarding private international law’ only confers a power on the Federal High Court to determine whether Ethiopian courts have judicial jurisdiction and if yes to determine the applicable law.  In short, article 11 sub article 2 (a) of Federal Courts Proclamation No. 25/1996 simply gives material jurisdiction exclusively to the Federal High Court.

2. Conflict of laws in civil cases

2.1. Extra-contractual liability (foreign company not registered in Ethiopia)

Applicant: Ethiopian Electric Light Corporation

Respondent: Dragados Construction

Cassation File Number: 42928

Date: 12-5-2002 (E.C.)

This case relates an action by applicant for compensation for damage caused by respondent while doing business in Ethiopia. Respondent argued that it a foreign company registered according to the law of Greece and domiciled in Athens. It also stated that it is not registered in Ethiopia. Based on these facts, respondent challenged the jurisdiction of the Federal First Instance Court, because the conflict of law rules apply to determine courts having jurisdiction and the applicable law. The Federal Instance Court accepted this argument and ruled that it does not have jurisdiction over the case. On appeal, the ruling of the lower court was affirmed by Federal High Court on the ground that the mater falls within its first instance jurisdiction.

The cassation bench reversed both decisions of the lower courts. The bench in its reasoning stated that damage was caused in Ethiopia while respondent was doing business in Ethiopia. The case was brought to the court where the damage caused. Therefore, the Federal First Court should exercise jurisdiction according to article 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Law.

2.2. Contract made in Ethiopia with a foreigner

Applicant: Global Hotel Private Limited Co.

Respondent: Mr. Nicola As Papachar Zis

Cassation File Number: 28883

Date: 26-3-2000 (E.C.)

The fact that one of the parties in litigation is a foreigner does not automatically make the case ‘a case regarding private international law.’ The defendant should necessarily challenge the jurisdiction of the court on the ground that Ethiopian law is inconsistent with the law of his nationality or domicile. If the foreign party does not invoke lack of jurisdiction of Ethiopian courts, the case is not a private international law case.

The Duty to serve: Cassation Bench on the legal effects of employer-sponsored Tuition Assistance


The Duty to serve: Cassation Bench on the legal effects of employer-sponsored Tuition Assistance

As an employee, you have a duty to serve your employer diligently. But, you don’t have a duty to continue serving your employer for life. If you ever feel like leaving, you are free to resign even without any valid ground (Article 31 of the labour proclamation No. 377/2003.) The only procedural requirement is giving a one month prior notice. Failure to give notice results in your liability to pay compensation (a maximum of your thirty days wages) to the employer (Article 45 of the labour proclamation No. 377/2003.)

But, is it always true that an employee does not have a duty to continue serving his employer at least for a limited period of time? There is one exception (limitation?) to the freedom of the employee to leave his employment. That is when the employer has covered education expenses of the employee and there is an express of employee to continue his employment for a limited period of time. The nature of this contractual obligation is not absolute rather it is alternative. This is to mean that the employee has still a choice either to serve his employer or reimburse all the expenses of education.

The following is a very brief summary of the position of the Cassation Bench of the Federal Supreme Court on issues related to the duty to serve.

My summary is based on the following six cases decided by the bench Continue reading →

Period of time to dismiss a worker for misconduct (Summary of cassation decisions)


Introduction

According to Ethiopian labour law, an employer loses his right to dismiss a worker irrespective of a valid ground of dismissal, if he fails to make a decision to terminate the employment contract within 30 working days. The time starts to run from the  date the employer knows the ground for the termination. (Article 27(3) of the labour proclamation 377/2003)

The following is a brief summary of Cassation decisions regarding the application an interpretation Article 27(3.

The meaning of working days

Applicant Ethio-Djibouti Railway

Respondent Teshome Kuma

Cassation File Number 36377

Date: Hidar 2, 2001 E.C.

In the Federal First Instance Court, where the case was first heard, the respondent claimed reinstatement and 6 months back pay alleging that his contract of employment was terminated unlawfully by the Applicant. However, the applicant employer challenged the claim stating that termination was lawful as it was due to an unlawful act committed by the applicant worker.

The Federal First Instance Court found the termination unlawful on procedural ground without investigating the merit of the case. The Court ruled that the employer (Applicant) has failed to take an action of dismissal within one month as required by the labour proclamation. For this reason, judgment was given in favour of the respondent The court awarded him six months back pay salary and reinstatement.

Applicant lodged an appeal against this decision to the Federal High Court, but it was rejected.

Lastly, the applicant submitted his application to the Federal Supreme Court, Cassation division for review of the lower courts on ground of fundamental error of law.

The cassation division examined the legal issue involved in the case by interpreting article 27 sub 3 of the labour proclamation No.377/2003. Both the federal first instance and high court misread the article in determining the period of time to take dismissal action by the employer. Rather than examining whether 30 working days have passed from the date the employer knew the ground for the termination, they simply counted 30 days to reach at a conclusion.

This was indicated by the cassation division as a manifest error. Accordingly, the case was re-examined based on the facts affirmed in the lower courts in order to determine whether 30 working days have passed. As stated in the decision, the worker allegedly committed fault on Meskerem 24 and 25 1999 E.C. and his contract of employment contract was terminate on Tikimet  25 1999 E.C.  From Meskerem 25 to Tikimet 25 there are four Sundays and assuming that Sunday is not a working day, there are only 24 working days during this time. Based on this calculation, the court reasoned, 30 working days have not passed, which makes the action of the employer valid for the purpose of time requirement.

Consequently, the decisions of the lower courts was reversed by the cassation division and the case was remanded to the federal first instance court to give its own decision on the merit i.e. the legality of termination of employment.

Continue reading →

Consolidated Ethiopian Civil Service Directives


I realized that most of you had a problem downloading of accessing the directives and manuals issued by the Civil Service Commission regarding employment conditions of federal civil servants. Now you can access all the materials compiled in one pdf document.

Click HERE to view Consolidated Ethiopian Civil Service Directives

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 8,543 other followers

%d bloggers like this: