Does the lithuanian law conform to European Union law’s provisions due to collective redundancies?

Šiandieniniame pasaulyje dėl sunkios ekonominės padėties vis daugiau įmonių ištinka bankrotas, kitos įmonės pradeda restruktūrizacijos procesus, kurie priveda prie vieno neigiamo padarinio - grupės darbuotojų atleidimo iš darbo. Siekiant apginti tokių atleidžiamų darbuotojų teises ir interesus, yra priimami įvairūs teisės aktai. Svarbiausias Europos Sąjungos darbo teisės aktas, skirtas apsaugoti grupės darbuotojų atleidimą iš darbo, yra direktyva Nr. 98/59/EB dėl valstybių narių įstatymų, susijusių su kolektyviniu atleidimu iš darbo, suderinimo. 2004 m. Lietuvos Respublika įstojo į Europos Sąjungą. TodėlLietuva turėjo Europos Sąjungos direktyvos nuostatas perkelti į savo nacionalinę teisę. Papildytame Lietuvos Respublikos darbo kodekse yra įtvirtinta daug nuostatų, panašių kaip ir direktyvoje Nr. 98/59/EB, tačiau abu šie teisės aktai turi ir skirtumų. Nagrinėjant, ar Lietuvos darbo teisėje yra įgyvendinamos Europos Sąjungos darbo teisės, tiksliau direktyvos Nr. 98/59/EB, nuostatos, kyla problemų dėl informavimo apie grupės darbuotojų atleidimą ir konsultavimosi apie tai su darbuotojų atstovais, jeigu įmonėje, įstaigoje ar organizacijoje tokių atstovų nėra, o konsultavimasis yra privaloma grupės darbuotojų atleidimo iš darbo procedūra. Taip pat, nors direktyvoje Nr. 98/59/EB nėra numatytos teisinės pasekmės dėl darbdavio pareigų informuoti kompetentingą valstybės instituciją apie grupės darbuotojų atleidimą iš darbo ar dėl pareigos konsultuotis su darbuotojų atstovais apie tokį atleidimą, bet Lietuvos darbo teisėje tokios teisinės pasekmės yra reglamentuojamos. Tačiau ir čia Lietuvos teismai daro išimtis. Todėl šiame magistriniame darbe nagrinėjami, Europos Sąjungos direktyvos Nr. 98/59 nuostatų perkėlimo į Lietuvos darbo teisę privalumai ir trūkumai.Directive No. 75/129/EEC dated 17th February, 1975 regarding coordination of laws of member states related to collective redundancies was later changed with the Directive of the European Union 98/59/EC regarding coordination of laws of member states related to collective redundancies. The aim of this Directive is to protect rights and interests of redundant group of workers. In accordance with regulations of this Directive 98/59/EC, the Seimas of the Lithuanian Republic by means of law dated 13th May, 2008, supplemented Lithuanian Labour Law with new article 130, intended to regulate redundancy of group workers. Therefore, this master thesis aims at analysis of transferring regulations of the European Union Directive 98/59/EC to national Lithuanian Labour Law. In order to answer the question various sources were analysed: the legislations, the jurisprudence of Lithuanian National Courts and the Court of Justice of the European Union and other literature. Also, the historical, comparative, descriptive methods are used in this research. New Article of Lithuania Labour Law determines what kind of redundancy is considered to be collective redundancy and what kind of redundancy is not. Like the European Union Directive 98/59/EC, it is regulated in the Labour Law of the Republic of Lithuania that the concept of \"dismissal of the group of workers\" means dismissal of the group of workers due to reasons unrelated to an individual worker. This concept is more definite in the Lithuanian Labour Law, as it is notified that reasons of dismissal may be economic or technological when the workplace lacks structural changes or due to other reasons. However, the main thing is for reasons to be unrelated to an individual worker. Regulations of the Directive 98/59/EC establish quite broad range of noncompliance of this Directive, however, Article 130of Lithuanian Labour Law narrows this range. Thus, it may be concluded that range of application of Directive 98/59/EC in Lithuania is broader and it allows better protection of rights and interests of group workers. Directive 98/59/EC of the European Union determines duty of the employer to inform representatives of workers about intended collective redundancy and to consult these representatives about redundancy of this kind. There are no clear indications in the Directive about who may be the representatives of workers in a company, institution or organization. State members are allowed using their national laws as foundation on determining representatives of workers. It is regulated in national legal acts of Lithuania that labour councils or trade unions may be representatives of workers. Then, the problem arises because situations sometimes occur when there are no trade unions or labour councils in a company, institution or organization – there are no representatives of workers at all. Conclusion can be drawn that in absence of representatives of workers the employer is not able to consult about collective redundancy, therefore, such consultations may not take place. However, it is clearly established in the Directive 98/59/EC and Article 130 of Labour Law that the employer must arrange consultations with representatives of workers. Court of Justice of the European Union clarified that member states are obliged to create mechanism that consultations with representatives of workers in case of collective redundancy should take place. Therefore, national courts of Lithuania clarified that in absence of representatives of workers in a company, institution or organization, employer must announce intended collective redundancy in general meeting of workers. Besides, Court of Justice of the European Union clarifies that in absence of representatives of workers employer may inform and consult staff of workers, but not every worker individually. Also, employer's duty to inform competent state institutions about intended collective redundancy after consultations with representatives of workers is regulated in the Directive 98/59/EC. Article 130 of the Republic of Lithuania determines that written notice should be sent to territory labourexchange, however, exact term of informing about intended collective redundancy is not indicated. Judicial panel of civil case department of Lithuanian Supreme Court states that when more than one worker is dismissed and consultations take place, it is not required by law to give in warnings to all workers at the same time and only after the end of consultations regarding all workers. In accordance with such clarification of Lithuanian Supreme Court, conclusion may be drawn that employer must inform about collective redundancy at instance when consultations are finished at least due to one worker of the group being dismissed. Directive No. 98/59/EC of the European Union does not provide duty for the employer to consult representatives of workers about dismissal of workers and inform competent state institution about such dismissal, however, Labour Law of the Republic of Lithuania determines that in case employer violates at least one of these duties, employment contracts with workers cannot be terminated. However, practice of Lithuanian Supreme Court reveals that contracts are terminated even in cases of determining violations of previously mentioned duties of the employer. Rule is formulated by practice of Lithuanian national courts that failing to arrange consultations with representatives of workers or violation of arrangement order may have had fundamental influence in case of dismissing a specific worker. The concept \"fundamental influence\" is not clearly defined, therefore, courts clarify it considering situation of every case individually. This allows concluding that courts in Lithuania make exceptions to Labour Law of the Republic of Lithuania. Therefore, in accordance with all conclusions, it may be stated that hypothesis provided in master thesis that regulations of EU Law, precisely Directive 98/59/EC of the European Union are not properly transferred to Lithuanian Labour Law, is ungrounded.Vytauto Didžiojo universiteta