Tort liability and employment law have a long and intertwined history. The "control test," initially used by English courts to determine employee status, originated in tort law. Employers can be held liable for damages caused by their employees to third parties and property, provided an employment relationship exists and the employee acted under the employer's control or direction. The evolution of tort liability has often mirrored developments in employment law. A crucial element in establishing employer liability is whether the individual who caused the damage was indeed an employee. This determination rests on the definition of "employee" as established by employment law. Civil courts adjudicating tort claims must interpret the Employment and Labor Law to ascertain the existence of an employment contract between the employer and the injured party. The court cannot apply a different standard for employee identification than the one defined in the Employment ...
World Vision Ethiopia -v.- Mezemir M.- Termination of Employment- violence at workplace-Cassation File No. 79105- V 13
World Vision Ethiopia -v.- Mezemir M.
Federal
Supreme Court Cassation File No. 79105 (July 10, 2012)
Holding of the
Court
Assault committed by a workmate residing in a living quarter
assigned by the employer shall not be interpreted as falling outside “violence
at workplace” even where it is performed outside working hours.
Labour Proclamation No.377/2003, Articles 4, 27(1)(f), 97
______________
Cassation File No. 79105 Hamle 3, 2004 E.C. (July 10, 2012)
Federal
Supreme Court Cassation Division
Justices: Tegene Getaneh,
Teshager Gebreselassie, Almaw Wolie,
Nega Dufesa, Adane Negussie
Petitioner: World Vision Ethiopia
Respondent: Mezemir M.
Judgment
The issue analyzed in this case is the meaning and spatial scope
that should be attached to “violence at work place”.
The petitioner dismissed the respondent for serious misconduct
that the latter was alleged to have committed at the place of work. The
respondent instituted a court action before the Federal First Instance Court
claiming that he has been unlawfully dismissed and requested for reinstatement
together with back pay. The present petitioner replied that the respondent was
summarily dismissed because of the sexual harassment, brawls and quarrels he
committed against a female workmate at the camp where the employer has
established as its employees’ residence, and argued that the measure taken
against the respondent is lawful. The court, after hearing the litigation and
the examining the evidence of the disputing parties upheld the measure taken by
the petitioner and affirmed the dismissal.
Dissatisfied with the decision of the lower court, the present
respondent lodged an appeal before the Federal High Court. The Court reversed
the decision of the lower court and awarded reinstatement with six months back
pay to the respondent. The reasoning of the Federal High Court was that
although the misconduct was indeed committed, it was committed outside the workplace
and working hours, and did not satisfy the requirement of the law for summary
dismissal.
The petitioner subsequently filed a petition to the Federal
Supreme Court Cassation Division against the decision of the High Court. While
affirming the decision of the First Instance Court and reversing the holding of
the Federal High Court, the Cassation Division of the Federal Supreme analyzed
the case as follows:
It has been verified from the files of the lower court that the
respondent was responsible for quarrels and brawls against a fellow employee at
a camp where employees resided. The decision of the High Court emanated from
its interpretation that since the victim was assaulted during the night and at
the dormitory allocated for employees, the act did not satisfy the requirement
of Article 27(1)(f) of Proclamation No.377/2003.
However, it must be noted that where an employee is held
responsible for brawls or quarrels during the time of work or in a place where
he performs the orders of the employer, he shall be liable for dismissal
without notice. It is believed that the objective of this provision is to
ensure industrial peace and productivity. Thus, the concept ‘place of work’
should be interpreted in line with such an objective.
In the case before us, it is proved that the respondent assaulted
an employee of the petitioner and this is admitted by the respondent. Based on
the relevant provision of the law, this act entails responsibility for
quarrels. Considering an assault committed by an employee against a workmate
while residing in a living quarter assigned by the employer as an act that
falls outside of the definition “violence at workplace” would be contrary to
the purpose and intent of the law. As a result, the Federal High Court has
committed a fundamental error of law in its decision rendering a decision in
the present case.
Decree
1. The decision of the
Federal High Court, File No.116083 is reversed pursuant to Article 348(1) of
the Civil Procedure Code.
2. The decision of the
Federal First Instance Court in File No.74140 is affirmed.
3. The measure of
termination taken by the petitioner is lawful.
....
Signature of five justices ____________________________________________________
Source: Federal Supreme Court Cassation Division Case Reports
Volume 13, pp. 94-96
Abridged translation: Mehari Redae
Comments
Post a Comment