{"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 2022:65 - Kanneaika","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"sTnpAJw8Op\"><a href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/tt-202265-kanneaika\/\">TT 2022:65 &#8212; Kanneaika<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/tt-202265-kanneaika\/embed\/#?secret=sTnpAJw8Op\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"\u00abTT 2022:65 &#8212; Kanneaika\u00bb &#8212; Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" data-secret=\"sTnpAJw8Op\" 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 muun muassa ty\u00f6ntekij\u00e4n palkkasaatavia. Vastaaja ja kuultava vaativat kanteen hylk\u00e4\u00e4mist\u00e4 vedoten ty\u00f6ehtosopimuksen m\u00e4\u00e4r\u00e4ykseen, jonka mukaan liittotason neuvotteluita tuli vaatia nelj\u00e4n kuukauden kuluessa paikallisneuvotteluiden p\u00e4\u00e4ttymisest\u00e4 puhevallan menett\u00e4misen uhalla. Ty\u00f6tuomioistuin katsoi, ett\u00e4 ty\u00f6ehtosopimukseen osallinen liitto oli ylitt\u00e4nyt edell\u00e4 mainitun m\u00e4\u00e4r\u00e4ajan liittotason neuvotteluita pyyt\u00e4ess\u00e4\u00e4n. Ty\u00f6tuomioistuin kuitenkin katsoi v\u00e4lituomiosta tarkemmin ilmenevill\u00e4 perusteilla, ett\u00e4 k\u00e4sill\u00e4 olevassa asiassa kantajan..."}