In the frame of complex and widespread legislation which can be equivocal and contradictory,our office has took up the defending of employee’s rights both in public and private sector, since state institutions,such as labor inspectorate at most cases urge employees to claim their rights before the competent courts.
Ιn practice, especially in the private sector, employer’s unilateral (arbitrary) harmful changes take place on a daily basis with respect to the labor relationships of all levels (place, time, salary, timetable). Each unilateral change brings the employee before the dilemma to accept the new terms or quit his job.
However, to prove the presence of a harmful change at the labor relationships, the employment contract should be studied and interpreted thoroughly (C.L. 173 & 200). In addition there must be an excessive research of possible law violations and the limitations of Director’s rights must be examined under the scope of C.L. 281.
According to the p.7 L. 2112/1920, “each unilateral change, which deteriorates the employee’s position, is equivalent to contact’s termination and this law is applied”. Many times, the deteriorating change consist direct or indirect material or damage or moral damage due to personality’ insulting regard to the employee’s professional value. The same holds in case the employer, in the frame of business’s reorganization,places the employee at a different department or place, wherein contradiction to his former department, the employee has inferior duties.
Labor accidents are also a subject sensitive difficult to interpret. We have taken up cases, where, although the accident did not occur during work, the courts held that the accident was directly related to work in the scope of a cause – effect relationship. It was thus ruled that because of the work’s special circumstances,the accident occurred (S.C. 299/1977). Even if the accident did not occur at the time and place of work, or while the employment contract was in force the accident is still deemed to be a labor accident as long as it relates to work in the scope of a cause – effect relationship and in a way that the work’s special circumstances caused the accident to happen (S.C. 178/1976 and S.C. 649/1974). As labor accidents have been characterized: Corporal damage caused by a foreign vehicle to a pedestrian who was returning home from work following the appropriate route (S.C. 630/1976), the marine’s drowning that occurred after work and during the marine’s entertainment time, since this entertainment time was judged necessary because of the prohibition of disembarking (S.C.229/1977), the marine’s accident which occurred after the expiration of the employment contract during his return to Greece by the captain’ s chosen means of transport (S.C. 178/1976).