{"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, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","author_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/","title":"TT 2020:102 - Kanteen tutkiminen","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"ho4IbIXmKX\"><a href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/tt-2020102-kanteen-tutkiminen\/\">TT 2020:102 &#8211; Kanteen tutkiminen<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/tt-2020102-kanteen-tutkiminen\/embed\/#?secret=ho4IbIXmKX\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"\u300a TT 2020:102 &#8211; Kanteen tutkiminen \u300b\u2014Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" data-secret=\"ho4IbIXmKX\" 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\u00f6tuomioistuimen ratkaistavana olevassa asiassa oli kysymys siit\u00e4, tuliko ty\u00f6tuomioistuimen 3.5.2017 antaman tuomion TT 2017:65 mukaista ty\u00f6ehtosopimuksen 6.4.3. kohdan m\u00e4\u00e4r\u00e4yksen tulkintaa noudattaa tuomion antamista edelt\u00e4v\u00e4lt\u00e4 ajalta syntyneisiin ylity\u00f6saataviin ja siit\u00e4, oliko yhti\u00f6 tietens\u00e4 rikkonut ty\u00f6ehtosopimusta kahden ty\u00f6ntekij\u00e4ns\u00e4 kohdalla. Lis\u00e4ksi asiassa oli kysymys siit\u00e4, tuliko yhti\u00f6 tuomita ty\u00f6ehtosopimuksen tieten rikkomisesta ja ty\u00f6nantajaliitto valvontavelvollisuuden laiminly\u00f6misest\u00e4 hyvityssakkoon. Ty\u00f6tuomioistuimen ratkaistavana..."}