13.9 C
Nicosia
Saturday, April 13, 2024

Ex-Artistic Director was vindicated for dismissal without legal reason

Must read

Δικαιoθηκε π&rho ;oην Καλλιτεχνικoς Διευθυντorς γ&iota

The Paphos Labor Disputes Court vindicated the former Artistic Director of Paphos as European Capital of Culture 2017 in relation to the case of the early and illegal termination of his employment.

On 30/11/2022 the The Labor Disputes Court ruled illegal the early termination of the employment of the then Artistic Director, Marios Ioannou Ilias, as a result of which it awarded him a significant amount of compensation.

According to the court decision, Marios Ioannou Ilias, a well-known professional in the field, was fired, without any legal reason.

According to the Court, Mr. Ilias noted that "in the Report document of the Professor Evaluation Committee’ of the Application (Exhibit 51) regarding the candidates for the position of K.D. based on Premise 1, he was ranked first by a margin over the other candidates because he had an international career, expertise and know-how in large-scale events, and recognition of both his administrative and artistic abilities».

« Apart from that, the Claimant's claims that before assuming the position of K.D. of Prof’ that the Application worked successfully for the city of Mannheim» adds the Court in its decision.

In addition, it is noted that the positions of Mr. Ilias that initially for a period of time he worked without other staff to help him and then without a sufficient number of staff and without the staff stated by the Kath’ of the Application that they would hire or should hire according to the advice of Acultos and their statements to the European Commission, that he prepared the artistic program of P.P.E Paphos 2017, that he re-costed the works contained in the nomination file (Bid Book) of Paphos 2017 and that with its own contribution Paphos 2017 succeeded in the evaluation of the European Commission in November 2014 "are supported by the documents it filed before the Court and their credibility was not shaken during its cross-examination".

Nor, continued the President of the Court, «his positions that his engagement with the project for the city of Ulm did not affect his performance in the Kath’ of the Application were shaken during its cross-examination».

Even on page 41 of the decision regarding the testimony of the President of Pafos 2017, Mr. Christos Patsalidis, the Court stated that the President of the Board of Directors of Paphos 2017 "nor did he put before us any concrete or tangible evidence to support his positions".

"Due to the above weaknesses in the testimony of Mr. Patsalidis, we judge that we cannot consider it as a reliable and safe basis on which we can rely to derive findings regarding the real facts of the case" the Court said in announcing its decision. Consequently, he continued, "the testimony in question is not accepted and consequently we cannot reach conclusions that support the version of the Kath’ of the Application», said the Court.

The Court also noted that "in view of the above conclusion, it proceeded to examine whether the Professors’ of the Application legally terminated the employment of the Applicant (Mr. Mario Ioannou Ilias) on 03/31/2015. Due to the rejection of the testimony of Prof’ of the Application based on the non-registration of the version of the Kat’ of the Application, Professors’ the Petition failed to prove that they legally terminated the Applicant's employment.

Furthermore, the Court emphasized that "for the purposes of completeness, the general allegations of Mr. Patsalidis, apart from the fact that they substantially affect the credibility of his testimony , they cannot by themselves be the basis for a conclusion».

The Court also notes that "in line with the above, we judge that the Professors’ the Petitioner have failed to discharge their burden of proof to show that, under the circumstances and within the factual context of the case, they acted reasonably as a reasonable employer and that they lawfully and justifiably terminated the Petitioner's employment within the framework of the Law and the principles established by jurisprudence”.

"It is therefore our conclusion", continued the President of the Court, "that the Professors’ that the Application did not legally terminate the Applicant's employment within the framework of Article 5(a) of the Law and consequently the Applicant is entitled to compensation in accordance with Article 3(1) of the Law and payment in lieu of notice.

< p>Additionally, it is mentioned in the decision that Mr. Marios Ioannou Ilias was previously vindicated twice, both by the decision of the Director of Social Insurance and by the Minister of Labour, Welfare and Social Insurance.

Specifically, in the judge's decision it is stated that "On 04/03/2016 the Director of Social Insurance, after investigating, within the scope of his responsibilities, the issue raised by the Applicant in a letter dated 08/06/2015 regarding the employment of as Artistic Director at Prof’ of the Application, decided that the employment of the Applicant in the Professors’ that the Application falls under the category of employed person according to article 1 of the Table, Part I, of the Social Insurance Law (Exhibit 6) and informed the Kat’ of the Application that they had to pay contributions to the Social Insurance Fund on behalf of the Applicant as an employee.

«The Defendants’ of the Application submitted a hierarchical appeal against the above decision of the Director of Social Insurance which was rejected by the Minister of Labour, Welfare and Social Insurance on 12/07/2016 (Exhibit 14). Prof’ that the Petition did not challenge the above decisions with appeals to the Administrative Court and paid contributions to the Social Insurance Fund for the Petitioner as an employee for the period September 2013 to March 2015, the Court said.

Read also: Pension approved for employees hired after 2011
 

Source: www.sigmalive.com

- Advertisement -AliExpress WW

More articles

- Advertisement -AliExpress WW

Latest article