Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly-Vanadzor

Yerevan city General Jurisdiction Court decided to revoke the decision of Yerevan school No. 75 headmaster Anna Grigoryan dated August 31, 2016, on firing Preliminary Military Preparation teacher Movses Shahverdyan. The Court decided to reinstate his former job position on an indefinite terms contract basis and levy an average monthly salary from the employer in favor of Movses Shahverdyan for the time period of enforced idleness.

In 2015, headmaster Anna Grigoryan signed a contract of one year period with M. Shahverdyan - who worked in Yerevan school No. 75 on the basis of a contract of indefinite terms - reasoning that it was related to the fact that retirement age was to be reached. Headmaster Anna Grigoryan resolved the contract of one year signed on August 31, 2016, on the basis of Article 113 § 11 of the RA Labour Code.   

However, the employee violated the law by this, since the contract was signed with the time period until the end of the academic year and was resolved at the very end of the academic year, i.e. on August 31, 2016. In this case, therefore, Article 113 § 11 of the RA Labour Code is not relatable, since the contract was resolved not before the end of the terms, as set by Article 113, but rather upon the expiration of the contract terms. Besides, M. Shahverdyan reached the age of 36 on September 29, 2015, and in case of dismissing him on this basis, it is compulsory that it be mentioned in the contract, however, this provision is not mentioned in the contract.  

Furthermore, being obliged to notify about dismissing from the job at least 14 days before the dismissal, the employee violated this provision, as well and did not send any notice to the employee, but rather informed him orally on the day of the contract resolution.  

Signing a definite term contract is not legal, either, since the law considers signing a definite term contract necessary, if it stems from the nature of the job. However, there is no need for signing a definite term contract with a teacher and this is also evidenced by the fact that the first contract was signed with him on the basis of indefinite terms in 2010.

On November 22, 2018, the Court made a judgment to revoke the order of dismissing Movses Shahverdyan from his job and reinstate him.

The Court stated that the employee had to notify the employer in time and in a proper way about resolving the contract, however, the former did not do that. The Court also recorded that there were internal contradictions in the order of dismissal from the job, whereas, such contradictions should be excluded in a legal act.

The contradictions are as follows, the resolution of the contract based on the expiration of the contract’s action and the resolution of the contract ahead of time based on the retirement age by the employee’s initiative.  

This gives a basis to claim that the order of dismissing from the job is not legal, and there is a violated working right of the plaintiff, therefore, the order should be revoked.

In connection with this, M. Shahverdyan should be reinstated in his job, the contract signed with him should be considered as a contract of indefinite terms and he should be paid an average monthly salary for the time period of enforced idleness, i.e. September 1, 2016, until the implementation of the judgment.

According to the decision of General Jurisdiction Court of Yerevan, Yerevan School No. 75 will also pay 4000 AMD state duty and 2% of the state duty of enforced idleness not paid beforehand.