But the first movement is a dream. I hear again the word of the works, unfortunately, we do not support you there because you are not a union member more. I also hear a call of a works council, as soon as someone comes in with the man himself a few words of confidence. There will be no wonder if the Chamber of Labour for certain companies have already provided for agents.
So sit there together at least the two named below, at 9.2. this year, and decide on a request from me I will only bring in but, at 11.2. this year. Yes, Labour has its own calendar. Especially
sit together and decide on an application on which they so little knowledge as possible want. On the actual date of the application there was no interest, only the word, yes, I see the documents, I will mention this, that all evidence is there. Labour of Labour. Safe? Is this safe way?
The Labour do not know what a friendly solution! She tries awkwardly to divert most, however, pointing to the Berechungsblatt and sees it as nothing comes out morally reprehensible, more than the following is written before the signature at the end of the outgoing people. And if my love nice ex company had written into the offer, they pay me to board a monthly amount of x, and I mean Signature would have set lower, then this is responsible for the offer is that of doing it. Point. As the train runs over it. There is indeed nothing illegal or harmful in the offer. It is a trivial bonus for half a year because they will now suddenly contradict the agreement. As if this company works agreements literally, and what I care about them even today? The company has offered me that. "We also save them to pay a pro rata incentive payment to the exit date." And almost at the end: "As a sign of its acceptance, we ask them, have signed the enclosed copy and return it to us." Such is, solicitation and Adoption. Signed twice, before my signature. As it should be in this company. Four eyes of control. A two-sided transaction. (From the consensual solution, which is a bilateral transaction), the company wanted someone with whom she has not fulfilled its obligations to fulfill (duty of care, a job offer would have most likely prematurely brought to the grave), go have, so what she has a problem with this pay out ridiculous premium for the company. Too bad that I did not know eight years ago what I know now. The councils have been sleeping at that time. At least the responsible upper floor.
to service certificate:
Over to name a department in which I was most of the time, with the list of all department heads, I can not very well offer to help. Apart from a few of the products.
"The final statement of their salary, a certificate, as well as her personal papers, please contact your relevant Human Resources Operations Center." (From the mutually agreed solution, a two-sided legal business) is
Nothing of employees in the service certificate. Questions in advance, as long as it was easy, we did not use.
I am not obliged to cooperate. I expect respect as a last proof of a service certificate, and the more it is true, the more I will keep the company in mind. Because to me my health stolen, has of course a heavy task.
All right, a simple service certificate. But it must be true. None of the three templates has done so. A critique on the first template remained unheard.
Just read what the Labour writes.
The designated person to know about the reality. The Labour here expressly affirms the practice that the service employee to write outgoing certificate itself. Maybe I'm
old-fashioned, maybe I'm not a salesman, but a Certificate for service that I write myself, has no value, the fact I'm wasting a thought.
The company is in my case, the duty of care not met, but now they could times confirm that it at least the record keeping requirement is met.
A small addition to the agreed solution I've been doing. "With the performance of this agreement all mutual claims and demands of their employment are paid in full." The Stolen time can not therefore be intended. Or the company will confirm here that the fall it?
request for legal
Dear XXXX!
The Chamber of Labour of Vienna announced that the legal
Commission in its meeting on 09.02.2011 to your request dated 11.2.2011 to grant relief to the company Siemens AG Austria, Siemens Street 90, 1210 Vienna has been no result.
According to § 4 para 1 lit a and b of the General Regulatory concerning their legal rights by the Austrian Chamber of Labour is required for the administration of justice among other things, a sufficient legal justification of a claim of the employee under the facts found and the prospect of a positive outcome of the proceedings for the assessment of law and evidence.
After the facts of the case ended and conditions of service by friendly solution. In the preliminary calculation of your termination claims incorrectly, the incentive payment for the current fiscal year into account. This is due, however, according to current guidelines BV only the completion of an employment relationship because of retirement, which is not present with you.
be incorrect from a preliminary calculation of claims, however, no legal claim
derived.
This is but according to the Vienna Chamber of Labour or from a legal point of view, nor the existing evidence, a reasonable prospect of a positive outcome of the proceedings.
respect your service certificate was given to you by your former employer explicitly the possibility to improve this and amended.
also our request to us the desired announce changes and additions
to induce an improvement in the service certificate, you have failed.
Legal Protection Commission was therefore able to give your notice that no further application.
But if you, contrary to the Vienna Chamber of Labour are believed to enforce a claim against the company Siemens AG Austria, you have the option of your claim by a the Labour and Social Court Vienna, Wickenburggasse 8 - 1080 Vienna, even to be introduced Protokollarklage on each Tuesday from 9:00 to 12:00 clock) to be asserted. Please note any rate applicable to your claim for revocation or limitation.
you have the option of an appeal against the decision. This is addressed in writing to the Commission's notice and justification.
Mag Irene Wood Bauer, Head of Legal Department
Mag Herbert Novotny, Head of Legal Department
0 comments:
Post a Comment