Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Helsingin HO 21.11.1984 635 AI generated

Court dismisses claim for notice pay when employer threatens termination for minor error.

Case Number Helsingin HO 21.11.1984 635
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court dismissed the employee's claim for notice pay and damages after the bank threatened to terminate their contract due to a minor cash error. The bank failed to prove the employee acted dishonestly, yet the court ruled that the employee's resignation, prompted by this threat, was invalid under the Employment Contracts Act. Consequently, the employee lost the right to notice pay and compensation because the employer's conduct rendered the resignation procedurally ineffective.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Employment Contracts Act s. 10; Employment Contracts Act s. 11: An employee's resignation induced by an employer's unlawful threat to terminate the contract without valid grounds does not deprive the employee of the right to notice pay or damages.

Keywords

AI generated
Employment Contracts Act unlawful termination threat notice pay entitlement induced resignation damages claim minor cash error employer misconduct

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Employment Contracts Act s. 10
Employment Contracts Act s. 11
AI generated
labour_1994_31
Labor court dismisses union appeal; employee fired for repeated breach of loan granting rules and breach of trust.
labour_1978_70
Labor court dismisses union claim against employer for termination, holding union liable for collective agreement violations.
labour_1988_119
Labor court dismisses union claim that employee's resignation was invalid due to employer's failure to accept withdrawal.
labour_1976_78
Labor court dismisses union's fine claim but awards severance for unjustified dismissal without economic grounds.
labour_1986_132
Labor court dismisses union appeal, upholding employer and union fine for violating dismissal protection rules.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Pankki oli kehottanut toimihenkilöään irtisanomaan työsopimuksensa selvittämättä jääneen määrältään vähäisen kassavirheen vuoksi uhalla, että muutoin pankki irtisanoisi toimihenkilön työsopimuksen. Pankki ei ollut saattanut todennäköiseksi, että toimihenkilö olisi menetellyt asiassa vilpillisesti pankin vahingoksi.

Kun pankki oli siten menettelyllään vastoin toimihenkilön tahtoa aiheuttanut tämän työsuhteen päättymisen ilman työsopimuslain edellyttämää perustetta, ei sanotunlaisissa olosuhteissa, joihin vetoaminen oli kunnianvastaista ja arvotonta, toimihenkilön pankin edustajien kehotuksesta allekirjoittama irtisanoutumisilmoitus poistanut toimihenkilön oikeutta irtisanomisajan palkkaan ja vahingonkorvaukseen.

Läsnä: Liukko, Nikula ja Kari (apuj.) Esittelijä: Leppisaari

KKO:n ratkaisu: Ei valituslupaa Päätös n:o 197/17.2.1985