{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","provider_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/","author_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","author_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/","title":"Helsingin HO 30.04.2020 576 - Ty\u00f6sopimus","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"qv9YX8r84I\"><a href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/helsingin-ho-30-04-2020-576-tyosopimus\/\">Helsingin HO 30.04.2020 576 &#8212; Ty\u00f6sopimus<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/helsingin-ho-30-04-2020-576-tyosopimus\/embed\/#?secret=qv9YX8r84I\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"\u00abHelsingin HO 30.04.2020 576 &#8212; Ty\u00f6sopimus\u00bb &#8212; Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" data-secret=\"qv9YX8r84I\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/\/# sourceURL=https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-includes\/js\/wp-embed.min.js\n<\/script>\n","description":"Ty\u00f6ntekij\u00e4, joka oli siirtym\u00e4ss\u00e4 ty\u00f6nantajansa kanssa kilpailevan yrityksen palvelukseen, oli ilmoittanut irtisanoutumisestaan ty\u00f6nantajalle noin nelj\u00e4 viikkoa ennen irtisanomisilmoituksensa mukaista ty\u00f6suhteen p\u00e4\u00e4ttymisp\u00e4iv\u00e4\u00e4, vaikka ty\u00f6suhteessa noudatettava irtisanomisaika oli vain kaksi viikkoa. Ty\u00f6nantaja oli katsonut ty\u00f6suhteen p\u00e4\u00e4ttyneen, kun irtisanomisilmoituksesta oli kulunut kaksi viikkoa. Hovioikeus katsoi, ett\u00e4 irtisanomisaika, jota ty\u00f6ntekij\u00e4 on velvollinen noudattamaan, on v\u00e4himm\u00e4isaika, eik\u00e4 estett\u00e4 ole sille,..."}