He resigned in the heat of the moment in an email – demanding that the job be returned to the court – work

If Mittal files a lawsuit against the company, asking the labor court to annul the employer’s dismissal of a former employee.

But what the company says is that they didn’t fire him at all, but that he chose to quit himself.

The background is a fierce email conversation between the employee and the boss, in which the employee rightly writes that he has quit.

But the union claims that this dismissal should not be considered valid and that it was therefore a dismissal on the part of the company when it stopped paying wages.

He repented and went to the guild

Usually, termination is immediately binding on the person who gives notice that they are leaving. But the union believes that there are circumstances that make this case an exception.

The man is said to have quit out of anger after a long-standing problem with his employer. This is said to have claimed, among other things, that the man had been unlawfully absent when he was on sick leave with a doctor’s testimony.

Just over a week after sending the email, the man and the union jointly informed the company that he had no intention of quitting.

The union line is that his firing was due to the company’s actions and that the employer should have realized that they had created a situation where there was a risk of leaving the job. Thus the company is said to have violated the foundations of the Employment Protection Act.

Termination in void wheel

The suit also states that the company should have known that, given the man’s health, he had no intention of terminating his employment.

This isn’t the first time someone has regretted an expulsion decision made in the heat of the moment.

In a court case from 2012, a woman was acquitted in an employment court after she resigned in connection with an exchange of ideas. According to the court, it happened under the circumstances that announcing that she would then have to resign would amount to dismissal by her employer.

The ruling states, among other things, that there is no doubt that she resigned hastily and that her employer should have realized this.