Solicitud directa (CEACR) - Adopción: 2017, Publicación: 107ª reunión CIT (2018)

Convenio sobre la terminación de la relación de trabajo, 1982 (núm. 158) - Letonia (Ratificación : 1994)

Article 2(2) and (3) of the Convention. Adequate safeguards in case of recourse to contracts of employment for a specified period. The Committee notes the Government’s comprehensive report, including detailed statistical information indicating that there has been a significant decline during the reporting period in the number of reinstatement cases received by first and second instance courts. The Committee recalls the information provided by the Government in its last report indicating that, pursuant to section 44(6) of the Labour Act, the same provisions that apply to workers engaged under a contract for an unspecified period also apply to those engaged under contracts for a specified period, for example, in regard to notice periods. Referring to its previous comments, the Committee notes that the Government has not provided information on judicial decisions interpreting section 44(6) of the Labour Act. The Committee reiterates its request that the Government provide information regarding judicial decisions interpreting section 44(6) of the Labour Act. It also requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure adequate safeguards against recourse to contracts of employment for a specified period of time (Article 2(2) and (3) of the Convention).

Articles 5(c) and 9(3). Invalid reason for termination. Procedure of appeal. In reply to the Committee’s request for judicial decisions interpreting section 9 of the Labour Act, which enables an employee to apply to the State Labour Inspectorate or to the court in order to invalidate termination of employment, the Government provides examples of Supreme Court decisions that examine, inter alia: the obligations of trade unions in the context of termination procedures, in that they are not required to state the reason that they oppose the termination; the reversal of the burden of proof, placing the burden on the employer; cases examining the reasons for termination; and the requirement that an employer obtains the consent of the trade union to give notice of termination to a union member. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that section 109, paragraph 2 of the Labour Act has been amended to permit the termination of an employee with a disability when the employee does not have sufficient professional skills to perform the work. The Committee notes that there is no information on the manner in which it is established that the termination is indeed based on a valid reason connected with the capacity of the worker, as contemplated in Article 4 of the Convention, to ensure that the termination is not pretextual. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide copies of judicial decisions interpreting section 9 of the Labour Act. It further requests the Government to provide information on any measures taken or envisaged to ensure that a worker with a disability is protected from termination on invalid grounds in light of the amendment to section 109, paragraph 2 of the Labour Act.

Application in practice. The Committee requests the Government to provide updated available information on the manner in which the provisions of the Convention are applied in practice, including relevant judicial decisions involving questions relating to the application of the Convention, available statistics on the activities of the bodies of appeal (such as the number of appeals against unjustified termination, the outcome of such appeals, the nature of the remedy awarded and the average time taken for an appeal to be decided) and on the number of terminations for economic or similar reasons in the country.