Dangerous precedent in Mahiliou – Aliaksei Paulouski not employed because of the “disagreement of the staff”
On 27 November the judge of the
Leninski District Court of Mahiliou Yuliya Trapynina turned down the
lawsuit of the activist of the Independent Trade Union of
Radio-Electronic Industry Aliaksei Paulouski, thus denying the fact
of adverse discrimination during his attempts to get employed.
The
representatives of the Mahiliou house-building combine, who had
refused to employ the activist because of the “disagreement of the
staff”, were present at the trial.
“During the past months
I have tried to get employed four time on direction of the social
employment center. During the first and the third attempt the
personnel department wrote that I was denied employment due to the
absence of vacancies and during the second and the fourth attempts –
due to the disagreement of the personnel. I don't know how the
personnel of an enterprise can hold an assembly and discuss my
candidacy that quickly,” shrugs Aliaksei Paulouski.
The
trade union activist considers such formulation as a violation of
Article 14 of the Labor Code and his legal right to employment and
went to court. He demanded to exact 21 million rubles from Mahiliou
house-building combine in his favor for his forced truancy since the
first employment denial, and oblige the enterprise to employ him.
At
the trial the enterprise representatives explained their reluctance
to employ Paulouski by referring to the possible “negative
consequences of his employment (dismissal) at other enterprises”
and the wish to “improve the atmosphere in the collective and
prevent destabilization of the situation at the enterprise”. The
head of the legal department of the enterprise stated she knew
Paulouski by his work at the building trust #12, that he talked with
other workers too much, held assemblies at dormitories, applied to
courts and “abused the law”.
The judge Trapynina turned
down Paulouski's lawsuit, saying that the employment denial because
of the objection of the personnel cannot be considered as adverse
discrimination, and during his first and third visits to the social
employment center only builders of the 6th category were needed,
whereas he had only the 5th category.
“In fact, they needed
builders of the 3-6th categories. However, as soon as I came there,
the demand for builders of lower categories was removed and only the
6th category was left. This can be confirmed by information from the
social employment center,” says the trade union activist.
The
human rights defender Barys Bukhel wasn't admitted to the court
sitting as Aliaksei Paulouski's representative from the Independent
Trade Union of Radio-Electronic Industry.
Paulouski and Bukhel
intend to appeal the court decision at the regional court.