The Hungarian Labour Code specifies that the dismissal by the employer may be in relation to the behaviour of the employee, but it does not specify exactly what kind of behaviours can be considered. The question arises as to whether the employer can define the possible reasons for termination in its own regulations, if so, can the termination be based solely on the violation of the internal regulations? In our article, we analyse this question based on the recent decision of the Supreme Court.
Facts
The claimant worked as a project manager at the defendant. Pursuant to her labour contract, she was obliged to comply with the provisions of the law, the university regulations, and the “Code of Ethics and Behaviour” of the defendant.
During her employment, the claimant sent an e-mail message to her colleagues from her work e-mail address, informing the recipients that she was 12 weeks pregnant, and due to her high-risk pregnancy, she was saying goodbye to her colleagues.
In the e-mail, the claimant made insulting and personal comments to her colleagues (the message is quoted in the decision, which can be an important reference for similar cases. Due to its obscenity, it is not quoted in this article.)
After learning about the email, the defendant terminated the claimant’s employment with immediate effect.
According to the justification, in the email, the employee made seriously defamatory statements and opinions regarding both her colleagues and the management of the defendant, which is unacceptable in a workplace. The style and manner of the letter are incompatible with the Catholic ethos of the defendant, with the ethical rules recorded in its mission statement and internal regulations, which were expressly acknowledged by the claimant.
The claimant stated in her claim that her employment was terminated wrongfully. She argued that the justification did not reveal what rule she had violated, the notion of “catholic ethos” cannot be interpreted in legal sense, and that the employer has misused its rights to prevent her from expressing her opinion.
The defendant emphasized that the Claimant’s letter, especially the parts cited in the notice of dismissal, violated the relevant provisions of the Code of Ethics, and there was no need to give a more detailed justification.
First and second instance judgement
The first instance court rejected the claim.
The court considered that in her email, the claimant spoke in a particularly insulting, hurtful, condescending, and degrading manner. The use of specific words and slangs strengthens the weight of defamatory terms. The court shared the defendant's argument that the style and manner used by the claimant are incompatible with the defendant's internal regulations, mission statement, and the Catholic ethos of the university.
The claimant submitted appeal against the judgment. The second instance court upheld the judgment of the first instance court as it agreed with its findings.
The claimant submitted request for judicial review, in which she requested the annulment of the judgment of the first instance court and the adoption of a decision corresponding to her claim. According to her, among other things, the courts did not examine the reasonableness of the justification of the termination.
The decision of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court found the request for review unfounded.
The Supreme Court found that the first and second instance courts clearly stated that the claimant’s statements violated the general ethical expectations of the university as well as the relevant internal regulations.
The statement of reasons is considered clear in case the employer refers to the violation of the rules contained in internal regulations, e.g. the Code of Ethics.
The Supreme Court concluded that the immediate termination of the employment relationship is lawful if the employee's behaviour during communication with colleagues is incompatible with the expectations contained in the employer's internal regulations known to the employee.
Comment
Violation of the employer’s internal regulations by the employee, including the code of ethics, could already be the basis for termination by the employer based on previous judicial practice. On the one hand, the recent decision confirmed the previous practice, and also made it clear that the violation of the code of ethics can be the basis not only for ordinary dismissal, but also for immediate dismissal, which is considered the most serious sanction. Due to the case law system developing in Hungary, the decision can be cited as a precedent in similar cases in the future.
(In the article, we analysed Supreme Court Decision published under No. “BH 2023.10.250”)
By Peter Gritta, Attorney-at-law, SmartLegal Schmidt & Partners
