{"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 2022:62 - Ty\u00f6ehtosopimuksen tulkinta","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"hV9AfZ4hnV\"><a href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/tt-202262-tyoehtosopimuksen-tulkinta\/\">TT 2022:62 &#8212; Ty\u00f6ehtosopimuksen tulkinta<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/tt-202262-tyoehtosopimuksen-tulkinta\/embed\/#?secret=hV9AfZ4hnV\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"\u00abTT 2022:62 &#8212; Ty\u00f6ehtosopimuksen tulkinta\u00bb &#8212; Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" data-secret=\"hV9AfZ4hnV\" 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":"Kanteessa vaadittiin vahvistettavaksi, ett\u00e4 konep\u00e4\u00e4llik\u00f6it\u00e4 koskevan ty\u00f6ehtosopimuksen nojalla konep\u00e4\u00e4llikk\u00f6 on oikeutettu varallaolokorvaukseen, kun ty\u00f6nantaja m\u00e4\u00e4r\u00e4\u00e4 konep\u00e4\u00e4llik\u00f6n varallaoloon huoltoseisontap\u00e4iviksi aluksen ollessa satamassa. Ty\u00f6tuomioistuin katsoi asiassa esitetyn n\u00e4yt\u00f6n puoltavan riidanalaisen ty\u00f6ehtosopimusm\u00e4\u00e4r\u00e4yksen tulkintaa, jonka mukaan varallaolokorvaus ei tule maksettavaksi konep\u00e4\u00e4llik\u00f6lle huoltoseisokin ajalta. Asiassa katsottiin my\u00f6s j\u00e4\u00e4neen n\u00e4ytt\u00e4m\u00e4tt\u00e4, ett\u00e4 ty\u00f6nantaja olisi riidan kohteena olevassa tapauksessa m\u00e4\u00e4r\u00e4nnyt konep\u00e4\u00e4llik\u00f6n olemaan varalla...."}