Cancellation of the order to impose disciplinary penalties, recovery of bonus payments, compensation for moral damage
The court cannot assess the plaintiff's work for the payment of the bonus, the payment of the bonus is the right and not the obligation of the employer. D. filed a lawsuit against U LLP for the cancellation of orders dated December 06, 2012, December 07, 2012 on the imposition of disciplinary penalties, the recovery of bonus payments for the holiday "Independence Day of the Republic of Kazakhstan" and according to the results of 2012 in the amount of 700,000 tenge, compensation for moral damage in the amount of 700,000 tenge. By the decision of the Yessil District Court of Astana dated May 23, 2013, D.'s claims were partially satisfied. The above-mentioned orders of the General Director of U LLP to impose disciplinary action on the plaintiff were declared illegal and canceled. The rest of the claim was denied. By the resolution of the Appellate Judicial Board for Civil and Administrative Cases of the Astana City Court dated July 04, 2013, the court's decision was changed. Bonus payments in the amount of 700,000 tenge were collected from U LLP in favor of D., court costs for the payment of state duty to the state revenue of 7,000 tenge, the rest of the court's decision was left unchanged.
By the decision of the cassation judicial board of the same court dated August 20, 2013, the decision of the appellate judicial board remained unchanged. In the petition of "U" LLP, supported by the representative of Sh. During its preliminary consideration, it requested that the decisions of the appellate and cassation judicial boards be annulled as illegal and unfounded, pointing out that bonuses for holidays are the prerogative of the administration, and the payment of bonuses for the reporting period is carried out by saving money on wages and based on the assessment of the work of employees. The Supervisory Judicial Board of the Supreme Court did not enter into the discussion of the legality of the adopted judicial acts regarding the invalidation of orders to impose disciplinary penalties on the plaintiff and in this part found them legitimate and justified. Meanwhile, the board considered that the decision of the court of first instance was fully lawful and there were no grounds for its cancellation in terms of rejecting the claim for recovery of bonus payments on appeal. By virtue of subparagraph 16) of paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the Labor Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, remuneration is a system of relations related to the provision by the employer of mandatory payment of remuneration to an employee for his work in accordance with this Code and other regulatory legal acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan, as well as agreements, labor, collective agreements and acts of the employer. The Supervisory Judicial Board of the Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the appellate and cassation judicial boards in this case regarding the satisfaction of D.'s claim. on the recovery of 700,000 tenge and 7,000 tenge of state duty from U LLP, the decision of the Yesilsky District Court of Astana remained in force in this part, and the judicial acts remained unchanged in the rest, stating the following. As can be seen from the content of the employment contract dated June 18, 2012, concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant, the employer undertakes to pay the employee wages in the amount and in accordance with the procedure provided for in Appendix No. 1 to this agreement and in accordance with the Regulations on Remuneration and Bonuses. The employer has the right to encourage the employee, impose disciplinary penalties, and bring him to financial responsibility in cases and in accordance with the procedure provided for by the labor legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan. According to Appendix No. 1, the plaintiff has a monthly salary of 350,000 tenge.
In accordance with paragraph 38 of the Regulations on Remuneration and Bonuses for Employees (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations) In order to strengthen the material interest of employees in improving production efficiency and quality of work, according to the decision of the General Director, employees may be paid a bonus based on the results of their work during the reporting period, implying the quality and effectiveness of their functional duties. The assessment of the employee's activity is carried out by the head of his structural unit on the basis of the employee's work assessment sheet item (40 of the Regulation). In these circumstances, the court of first instance came to the correct conclusion that the court could not assess the plaintiff's work for the payment of the bonus, the payment of the bonus is the right, not the obligation of the employer. Taken together, the supervisory judicial board of the Supreme Court considered that the defendant's actions did not violate any of the plaintiff's rights provided for by law, the court of first instance did not commit violations involving a change or cancellation of the decision, and therefore, the appellate instance unreasonably overturned the court's decision regarding the refusal of the claim for recovery of bonus payments.
Attention!
Law and Law Law Law draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a particular situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in legal advice, drawing up any legal document suitable for your situation.
For more information, please contact a Lawyer / Attorney by phone: +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (700) 978 5755, +7 (700) 978 5085.
Attorney at Law Almaty Lawyer Legal Services Legal Advice Civil Criminal Administrative Cases Disputes Protection Arbitration Law Firm Kazakhstan Law Office Court Cases
