Cases
OCTOBER 2022
Subject of claim:
Admission to the workplace, non-imposition of obstacles in the exercise of labor activity.
Basis of claim:
According to the Plaintiff, he was forced to resign, in connection with which he suspended work and stated the relevant requirements for admission to the workplace.
The Plaintiff did not provide evidence confirming the Plaintiff's explanations about exerting pressure on him and committing coercion to dismissal by the employer. During the consideration of the case, it turned out that there were no restrictions on the Plaintiff's rights in accordance with the grounds of discrimination in the field of labor on the part of the Defendant - the plaintiff had been working in the company for 5 years up to this point. The Defendant did not create conditions that would prevent the Plaintiff's admission to work. Throughout the entire period, the employee was on the staff of the organization, received payments in accordance with the Employment Contract and an Additional Agreement, according to the time worked. During the process, the Plaintiff was asked to go to work on schedule and continue his work. The court's decision denied the claim, and the requirement to allow the Plaintiff to the workplace was found to be unfounded, since in fact no obstacles to the workplace were made for the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff went to work.
The text of the court ruling can be found here: