An employee filed a labor lawsuit against a company in which she was working, demanding that she be obligated to pay her a leave allowance, bonus, commissions, and one million dirhams in compensation for losing her fetus as a result of the pressures she was exposed to at work. and delayed wages, and refused to compensate the employee for the loss of the fetus.
In the details, the employee demanded in her lawsuit that she be returned to her job, and that the company pay her a leave allowance of 180,000 dirhams, a bonus of 694 thousand dirhams, a land commission of 510,000 dirhams, a 9-year building rental commission of 500,000 dirhams for each year of lease, and one million dirhams As compensation for the loss of her fetus, she indicated that she was assigned to work for the company for nearly 20 years at a wage of 77,000 dirhams and that she remained at her job until she was referred to early retirement, and she was asked to hand over the custody that she had, and that it was agreed between her and the company to make a settlement, but the company She did not implement what was agreed upon and did not pay her dues.
The employee indicated that she underwent an egg implantation surgery, after which the results showed that she was pregnant, and after a month she underwent a uterine cleaning operation to obtain an abortion for her fetus, pointing out that the employees of the company she was working for did not comply with the medical reports she submitted to them, and did not respond to her request to postpone the discussion of the scheduled early retirement. that she might give birth, and that this error had psychological and physical consequences for her.
The Court of First Instance ruled to obligate the company to pay the employee 324,000 dirhams instead of warning and leave, and rejected her other requests. Attendance and leave system for a period of two years, which makes it not due to the wages paid to it during that period.
After submitting omission requests from both parties, the court ruled obligating the company to pay the employee 165,000 dirhams the value of her overdue wages and obliged her to transfer the retirement discount percentage due to her. The company and the employee appealed the ruling by way of cassation.
In her appeal, the employee indicated that the court refused to award her the “bonus” even though her evaluation was the highest in the department in which she works, and that the expert estimated her entitlements without seeing the termination agreement, and he also neglected to calculate commissions for her, and refused to compensate her for the death of her expected fetus. With her guts, confirming her entitlement to compensation for the unfair dismissal because the company referred her to retirement without her asking for it and not notifying her as well of what is attributed.
As for the court, it indicated that the case papers were void of what confirms the causal relationship between the employee’s miscarriage of her fetus and the company’s working conditions, pointing out that the contract between the employee and the company did not stipulate her entitlement to the reward she demands and that the company’s internal system does not stipulate that workers are entitled to a periodic reward, and that The remuneration is subject to the discretion of the Company's Board of Directors.
In its appeal against the ruling, the company confirmed that the report of the delegated expert in the lawsuit did not pay attention to the real reason for terminating the employee’s service, which is her tampering with the attendance and departure system and her absence from work without justification. , confirming that the employee does not deserve a warning allowance for the legality of ending her services, and she does not deserve a leave allowance because she does not attend work on a regular basis, while the court rejected the company’s appeal, explaining that it did not prove that warnings had been given to the employee and did not follow the path established by law that an investigation should be conducted with her.
The court ruled to reject the two appeals and obligated the two parties to pay the expenses and set-off in the attorney's fees, and obligated the company to pay the fees and ordered the confiscation of the insurance.
Read also :