{"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":"TT 2018:79 - Irtisanomissuoja","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"NapYjqH28y\"><a href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/tt-201879-irtisanomissuoja\/\">TT 2018:79 &#8212; Irtisanomissuoja<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/tt-201879-irtisanomissuoja\/embed\/#?secret=NapYjqH28y\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"\u00abTT 2018:79 &#8212; Irtisanomissuoja\u00bb &#8212; Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" data-secret=\"NapYjqH28y\" 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":"Yhti\u00f6 oli irtisanonut ty\u00f6ntekij\u00e4n ty\u00f6sopimuksen ja ilmoittanut irtisanomisperusteeksi ty\u00f6ntekij\u00e4n ep\u00e4asiallisen k\u00e4yt\u00f6ksen ty\u00f6paikalla. Ty\u00f6tuomioistuin katsoi esitetyn n\u00e4yt\u00f6n perusteella, ett\u00e4 ty\u00f6ntekij\u00e4lle ennen ty\u00f6sopimuksen irtisanomista annettu varoitus oli ollut aiheeton ja lis\u00e4ksi kiusaamisv\u00e4itteen osalta niin yksil\u00f6im\u00e4t\u00f6n, ettei ty\u00f6ntekij\u00e4ll\u00e4 ollut ollut mahdollisuutta korjata menettely\u00e4\u00e4n. Osa vastaajan v\u00e4itteist\u00e4 j\u00e4i kokonaan n\u00e4ytt\u00e4m\u00e4tt\u00e4 tai ty\u00f6ntekij\u00e4n moitittavaksi katsottava menettely oli ollut v\u00e4h\u00e4ist\u00e4. N\u00e4yt\u00f6n..."}