THE COMMON ATTORNEY-AT-LAW OFFICE
PAR-CERIC-GRADAC
10000 Zagreb, Kralja Drzislava 2, Croatia
tel:(01)4670-281; 4615 552; fax:4612-883
e-mail: odvjetnici.par-ceric-gradac@zg.htnet.hr
MUNICIPAL COURT IN ZAGREB
Legal matter:
PROSECUTOR: PERATOVIC ZELJKO, from Zagreb, III Pile 25
Represented by: attorney Irena Radic
DEFENDANT: VJESNIK P Ltd., Zagreb, Slavonska avenija 4
COMPLAINT
Because returning employee on job and payment of lost salary
I The prosecutor is employee of the defendant on undetermined time on employment position journalist-senior associate IV, and which labour relation is regulated by Work contract on undetermined time since 18.02.2002. year.
On the day 04.08.2005. the defendant brought Resolution of irregular dismissal of Work contract, by which for the prosecutor is canceled Work contract because of serious violation of working duty for reason because on the day 22.07.2005., as the author, have published a big interview with Pavle Gazi in public paper «Feral Tribune», and he didn’t ask for consent of his employer. Therefore, the defendant consider that the prosecutor in that way commited specialy serious violation of working duty, by which is disrupted relation of confidence of employer and worker and because of such act of the prosecutor continuation of working relation is not possible. Furthermore, the defendant in explanation of Resolution of irregular dismissal of Work contract quote that the prosecutor in 2002. was warned for not fulfilling his obligations in accordance with regulations in Book of working regulations, because, namely he was fulfilling his works in unsatisfactory way by range and quality.
The prosecutor in legal term on day 29.08.2005. made appeal on subject resolution.
EVIDENCE: expected recognition from the defendant, the Work contract of the prosecutor since 18.02.2002., copy of the defendant’s Resolution of irregular dismissal of Work contract since 04.08.2005., copy of the prosecutor’s objection since 29.08.2005., if necessary other evidences
II After enclosed objection, the prosecutor received a resolution of employer-defendant, by which the defendant determine that there is no basis for changing Resolution of irregular dismissal from 04.08.2005. because the prosecutor violated rule article 5 of Work contract and article 56. section 1. point 16. of Book of working regulations.
Article 56. section 1. point 16. of Book of working regulations says: «that worker must esteem article 92. of Law of work (legal prohibition of match), and section 2. of the same article says: «because of disregard of this working duty the employer can cancel Work contract, and if it is especially hard violation by which the process of work is obstructed, and in that or another way, cause material damage or obstruct reputation of papers Vjesnik, an irregular dismissal of Work contract can be given.» In accordance with previously quoted regulation of Book of working regulations comes that violation made by prosecutor is no such hard violation of working duty which would justified irregular dismissal, so this Resolution of irregular dismissal to prosecutor illegal.
Furthermore, the prosecutor quote that he thinks that by publishing of subject interview in public papers «Feral Tribune» didn’t make any material damage to the defendant, or his reputation obstructed or in any other way obstructed the working process, so the conditions from article 56. section 2. of Book of working regulations for giving irregular dismissal of Work contract to the prosecutor are not fulfilled. Also th edefendant in explanation of Resolution of irregular dismissal of Work contract and in answer on objection of the prosecutor didn’t explain in any way subject resolution, although he referes on rules of Book of working regulations which clearly and briefly found reasons for making Resolution of irregular dismissal of Work contract. Namely, by article 114. of Law of work the parties can irregularly dismiss Work contract: «if because of especially hard working violation or because of some other especially relevant fact, considering all conditions and interests of both contract parties, the continuation is not possible.» Considering that article 56. section 2. of Book of working regulations clearly points out reasons for irregular dismissal of Work contract, the prosecutor claims that the same are not fulfilled and that this Resolution of irregular dismissal illegal, because it is not in accordance with demands from Book of working regulations, which is used in making this very Resolution of irregular dismissal.
In favor of this claim that subject Resolution is illegal, emphasized is that is well-known that such offence done by journalists who work at defendant, don’t have irregular dismissal of Work contract as a result. Namely, in 2003. the journalist of defendant, Marijana Matkovic and journalist Adriano Milovan, cooperated with other medias and because of that cooperation punished with destimulation of salary in amount of 1.000,00 kunas, although at that time was on rule also subject Book of working regulations and article 56. section 1. point 16 and 2 of the same one. It is obvious that the defendant by making disputable Regulation of irregular dismissal of Work contract towards the prosecutor didn’t act in the same way towards other employees, because for such violation only to him is irregularly dismissed Work contract.
The prosecutor also wasn’t getting his salary since the day of termination of working relation, and that is 16.08.2005. when the prosecutor got Resolution of irregular dismissal of Work contract from the defendant.
EVIDENCE: expected recognition of the defendant, the Book of working regulations of the defendant, Work contract of the prosecutor, interrogation of the prosecutor, interrogation of witness Marijana Matkovic and Adriano Milovan, both on address of the defendant, by need financial expert evaluation, by need others evidences
III The prosecutor quotes that disputable interview which he published in public papers «Feral Tribune» and whic on the day 22.07.2005. and publicly published in mentioned public papers, made out of his working time, and that he in accordance with regulations of Work contract, on the day 11.07.2005. at 14:54 hours handed over to the chief editor Andrea Latinovic, who without any explanation disallowed its publishing, and for which direct cognitions has editor Nada Dmitrovic. On the day 12.07.2005. the prosecutor talked with assisstant of the director, dr. Goran Popovic about diputable text, and he was ready to make corrections in that text, and all in accordance with the defendant’s general editor approach, who informed him that he would talk to the chief editor of the defendant, Andrea Latinovic, and that he would be informed about everything in time. Considering that he didn’t get any oral or written explanation, the prosecutor led by journalist principals of in time and truthful informing of public decided to publish the interview in public papers «Feral Tribune» on his own expense. The prosecutor is a journalist whose texts were awarded by international journalist associations (The award of Reporters without borders of Austria, by award Press Freedom Award 2003.) because of in time and truthful informing of public, and his decision to publish this text without approval of the defendant, was only made led by journalist principle of in time and truthful informing of public.
On quotes in Resolution of irregular dismissal of Work contract since 04.08.2005. that the prosecutor even in 2002. was warned that he didn’t fulfill his obligatios in accordance with rules of Book of working regulations, because he supposedlly unsatisfactory was doing his job by range and quality, the prosecutor says that subject quotes are not accurate, and in favour of that he quotes the fact that at that time he was by chief editor Kresimir Fijacko and his deputy, Miroslav Lezaja and executive director, Zlatko Herljevic, suggested for award of Croatian journalist association fir investigative journalism, and what he wouldn’t be for sure so if the prosecutor worked his job in unsatisfactory way by range and quality.
EVIDENCE: interrogation of the prosecutor, interrogation of witness Nada Dmitrovic, Goran Popovic, both on the address of the defendant, by need other evidences
IV Considering that the defendant refuses to take the prosecutor back to work and pay him off his lost salaries, the prosecutor suggests that court give
v e r d i c t
1. The Resolution of the defendant from 04.08.2005. of irregular dismissal of Work contract is canceled and to the defendant is ordered to take back the prosecutor on his job on which he was working before illegal termination of working relation in term of 8 days.
2. To the defendant is ordered to pay off the lost salaries to the prosecutor since 16.08.2005. till taking back the prosecutor on work, together with belonging lawful default interest since the day of arrival of every single monthly amount of salary till the pays off, and also to compensate to the prosecutor the trial costs, and all in term of 15 days.
Zagreb, 12.09.2005.
The prosecutor
Represented by attorney Irena Radic