The Supreme Court has confirmed the legitimacy of a notice for termination given for failure to meet the requirements for proper work performance in the field of communication and teamwork – i.e., what is known as soft skills.
The process for hiring new talent is where legitimate expectations and requirements of the employer as to the qualification and personal profile of the prospective hiree are confronted with the supposed experience, skills, and talents as declared by the applicant. You, in the role of the employer, have provided a clear definition of what is needed to properly perform in the advertised position. You need the hiree to be able to work well within the team and expect them to be a brilliant communicator both toward customers and fellow staff members. You would also like them to promote and strengthen the pleasant workplace culture you’ve established, through their attitude and through how they conduct themselves.
Alas! The accommodating, communicative, non-combative qualities advertised by your new worker fail to materialize. To the contrary: the employee proves unable to communicate well with colleagues and clients. They are creating a tense atmosphere at the office and their attitude is the focal point for frequent conflicts. Naturally, this is not the kind of person whom you would like to keep among your ranks. But how to legally terminate them? Is such an employee acting in ways which could be said to infract with legal provisions pertaining to their job description, or otherwise falling short of the requirements for proper work performance? This question was adressed by the Supreme Court in its decision 21 Cdo 3366/2022.
Pursuant to Sec. 52 (f) of the Labor Code, the employer may give notice of termination to an employee e.g. because the employee, for no fault of the employer, fails to meet the requirements for proper work performance sest out by the employer. This concept covers such issues as lack of skills, lack of qualification, an irresponsible attitude toward the discharge of work duties, lack of moral qualities, or other causes interfering with the discharge of work tasks.
The cited decision by the Supreme Court is based on the notion that the employee in question, while indeed carrying out his work tasks as ordered, had failed to meet the basic requirements set out by the employer for the given type of work, especially in the realm of communication and collaboration. While there was no evidence of any intentional breach of work duties, the fact that the said communication and teamwork requirements had not been fulfilled over an extended period of time gave sufficient grounds for termination pursuant to Sec. 52 (f) of the Labor Code. This is without the prejudice to the possibility that the non-fulfillment of requirements for proper work performance may ultimately find its reflection also in an infraction of certain statutory (legal) provisions pertaining to the job performed by the employee.
In any case, the decision confirms that the termination of employment may be based strictly on the objective non-fulfillment of employer’s requirements, even if no concrete work duties were violated. In the case under consideration, there was evidence of lasting issues in the area of communication and teamwork, which led to the conclusion that the notice of termination was legitimate. Having arrived at that conclusion, the Supreme Court found that it was obsolete to review whether or not this also led to a breach of legal provisions pertaining to the given job description.
Source:
Supreme Court decision
21 Cdo 3366/2022 NS of 29 December 2023