{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","provider_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/","author_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen","author_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/author\/hassankohen\/","title":"TT 2016:128 - Irtisanomisajan palkka","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"dCF5MKZt3Y\"><a href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/tt-2016128-irtisanomisajan-palkka\/\">TT 2016:128 &#8211; Irtisanomisajan palkka<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/tt-2016128-irtisanomisajan-palkka\/embed\/#?secret=dCF5MKZt3Y\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"\u300a TT 2016:128 &#8211; Irtisanomisajan palkka \u300b\u2014Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" data-secret=\"dCF5MKZt3Y\" 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\u00f6nantaja oli tarjonnut toistaiseksi lomautetulle ty\u00f6ntekij\u00e4lle soveltuvaa ty\u00f6t\u00e4 v\u00e4hint\u00e4\u00e4n viiden viikon ajaksi. Ty\u00f6ntekij\u00e4 oli kielt\u00e4ytynyt ty\u00f6st\u00e4 opintoihin vedoten. Ty\u00f6ntekij\u00e4 irtisanoutui my\u00f6hemmin ja vaati lomautuksen v\u00e4hint\u00e4\u00e4n 200 p\u00e4iv\u00e4n yhdenjaksoisen keston perusteella korvauksena irtisanomisajan palkkaa ja lomakorvausta. Asiassa oli kysymys siit\u00e4, oliko lomautus p\u00e4\u00e4ttynyt ty\u00f6n tarjoamisen johdosta ja 200 p\u00e4iv\u00e4n yhdenjaksoinen lomautus siten keskeytynyt. Ty\u00f6tuomioistuin katsoi aiempaan..."}