Termination of employment agreements by the employer: Azerbaijani Supreme Court's Decision

 

The Supreme Court of the Republic of Azerbaijan has issued a significant decision in the field of labor law, in the context of the termination of employment agreements by the employer in Azerbaijan, establishing new legal practice regarding the application of Article 70, clause "ç" of the Labor Code in relation to employees whose employment termination is prohibited.

 

This decision holds great importance in ensuring legal equality and the proper regulation of labor relations when resolving disputes between employers and employees. The detailed analysis of the court’s ruling is aimed at both protecting employees' labor rights and safeguarding employers’ interests. Furthermore, this decision demonstrates how serious violations and legal breaches in labor relations can be addressed without employees abusing their rights.

 

While working as a specialist doctor at the polyclinic, the employee was dismissed by order dated May 17, 2022. The employer justified the dismissal under Article 70, clause "ç" of the Labor Code, citing that the employee had committed an administrative offense under Article 72, clause "f" of the Labor Code and had failed to perform their duties in the workplace. Article 70, clause "ç" of the Labor Code provides for the termination of an employment contract by the employer in Azerbaijan in cases of gross violations of job responsibilities. The reason for the employee's dismissal was their involvement in criminal prosecution and subsequent commission of an administrative offense. The first-instance court, taking into account that the employee was caring for their disabled mother, accepted the complaint against the dismissal order and reinstated the employee to their previous position.

 

The Court of Appeal partially modified the decision of the first-instance court. While acknowledging that the employee was entitled to special protection due to caring for their disabled mother, the court determined that the violations committed in the workplace (fraudulently obtaining money from individuals) were not directly related to this protection. As a result, the Court of Appeal did not reinstate the employee to their previous position and upheld the lawfulness of their dismissal.

 

The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the cassation appeal, annulled the decision of the Court of Appeal. In defending the employer's rights to terminate the employment agreement in dispute, the Supreme Court emphasized that the employee's commission of administrative offenses in the workplace and subsequent failure to perform their job functions justified the employer’s right to terminate the employment contract. In this context, the legal protection granted to the employee due to caring for their disabled mother could only be applied in cases directly related to this matter.

 

The Supreme Court also made specific references to Article 79 of the Labor Code. While Article 79 of the Labor Code is intended to protect the rights of certain individuals (such as the relatives of persons with disabilities), this protection applies only when the violations committed by those individuals in the course of their work are directly related to such matters. Since the employee's care for their disabled mother did not establish a causal link with the gross violations committed at the workplace, this fact could not be considered as a basis for protecting the employee's rights against dismissal.

 

The Supreme Court extensively interpreted the application of Article 70, clause "ç" of the Labor Code, independently upholding the employer’s right to terminate the employment agreement and dismiss the employee. The court emphasized that in cases where the employee fails to fulfill their job responsibilities and commits gross violations of labor discipline, the employer has the right to terminate the employment contract. In the absence of a causal link between the employee’s violation and their privileged status, the employer’s rights must be upheld, and the dismissal of the employee should be considered lawful.

 

The Supreme Court also stated that Article 79 of the Labor Code can only be applied in cases where the employee has privileges, but if there is no causal link to justify those privileges, it would not be correct to limit the employer's rights. This is an important principle in terms of protecting the employer’s interests.

 

The Supreme Court's decision reaffirms the principle that the employer is not obligated to continue the employment relationship with the employee and that the principle of legal equality must be upheld when terminating an employment contract. This decision aims to protect the rights of employees while also ensuring that employers can enforce labor discipline and make decisions regarding employees who fail to fulfill their job responsibilities. Furthermore, the decision highlights the importance of safeguarding the employer's rights while considering the employee’s personal life, such as caring for a disabled family member, when applying the Labor Code. The employer has the right to terminate the employment contract in cases where the employee fails to perform their job duties. However, the employee’s rights and personal circumstances must be directly linked to the violation. This serves as an important legal precedent for ensuring legal equality in labor relations.

 

Nevertheless, we believe that the following points should be considered while referring to the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court:

• The final authority to interpret the mentioned article of the Labor Code vests in to the Constitutional Court, and the stated approach may be reconsidered or further clarified;
• Dismissal of an employee based on this decision of the Supreme Court should be considered only in very limited cases;
• The employer must prove the absence of a causal link between the privilege invoked by the employee (e.g., caring for a disabled family member) and the alleged gross violation, as the law does not impose such a duty on the employee, whereas the burden of justifying a dismissal order rests with the employer;
• If the evidence is insufficient to establish the absence of a causal link, the matter should be resolved in favor of the employee;
• Since proving causation is a question of fact, it will be necessary to collect and document relevant evidence in a timely manner (e.g., medical evidence of the employee’s psychological state at the time of the violation may become impossible to obtain later);
• To the extent possible, instead of directly issuing a termination decision by the employer, other preventive and corrective (restorative) measures should be considered first, with termination being a last resort.