BB.lv: An worker of a Latvian firm is accused of a scarcity: what to do?

Whereas I used to be on trip, the corporate carried out a listing, following which I used to be knowledgeable {that a} scarcity had been found, which I used to be obliged to repay, in any other case they threatened to sue.

However, firstly, I didn’t signal the legal responsibility settlement, and secondly, the stock was carried out throughout my absence, and I do not know why (who) and at what level the scarcity arose. What ought to I do? bb.lv reader”

Alevtyna Hryhorenko, lawyer:

– The query is expounded to the group of labor on the enterprise. Because of this the employer employs its staff in accordance with the Labor Legislation (Article 28), specifically, in accordance with the concluded employment contract, it determines the work schedule, the worker’s accountability, makes the agreed wages and ensures truthful, protected and wholesome working situations.

In line with the Labor Legislation (Article 86), if an worker, and not using a good cause, doesn’t carry out work or performs it improperly, or, by committing different illegal, responsible actions, causes injury to the employer, then he (the worker) is obliged to compensate for the losses brought on to the employer.

Thus, the idea and quantity of the worker’s civil legal responsibility is decided based mostly on correctly executed authorized paperwork. Often that is an act that’s drawn up within the presence of the worker. If a scarcity is recognized, the worker is required to jot down an evidence of the scarcity (loss).

In a particular scenario, there isn’t any clarification as as to if the switch of fabric belongings happened earlier than signing the holiday paperwork. If not, then the injury recognized within the absence of the worker should be justified and recorded not solely by the stock act, but additionally by the justification of the norms of labor laws, the employment contract and inner rules, in addition to different proof with which the employer confirms compliance with the inner rules (stock) within the absence worker. Justification is an evidentiary facet that straight confirms the worker’s guilt.

Relating to doable litigation: if the employer has not promptly organized the implementation of labor guidelines on the enterprise (stock), together with the switch or reporting of fabric belongings (any product), then it will likely be fairly problematic for him to show the guilt of a specific worker. The courts additionally consider what can function a foundation for releasing an worker from legal responsibility (Labor Legislation, Article 87). Proof of the worker’s guilt should be conclusive. On this case, judging by the outline of the scenario, it’s uncertain that the employer has full proof.