{"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 2023:38 - Irtisanomissuoja","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"M6NMg1cFYm\"><a href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/tt-202338-irtisanomissuoja\/\">TT 2023:38 &#8211; Irtisanomissuoja<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/tt-202338-irtisanomissuoja\/embed\/#?secret=M6NMg1cFYm\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"\u300a TT 2023:38 &#8211; Irtisanomissuoja \u300b\u2014Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" data-secret=\"M6NMg1cFYm\" 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":"$9b Tuomiossa katsottiin j\u00e4\u00e4neen n\u00e4ytt\u00e4m\u00e4tt\u00e4, ett\u00e4 luottamusmiehell\u00e4 ei olisi ollut edellytyksi\u00e4 selviyty\u00e4 ty\u00f6paikalla tarjolla olevista ty\u00f6teht\u00e4vist\u00e4 kohtuullisin mukautuksinkaan. Luottamusmiehen ty\u00f6kyvyn ei siten ollut n\u00e4ytetty v\u00e4hentyneen olennaisesti ja niin pitk\u00e4aikaisesti, ett\u00e4 ty\u00f6nantajalta ei olisi voitu kohtuudella edellytt\u00e4\u00e4 sopimussuhteen jatkamista. Sen sijaan j\u00e4tt\u00e4m\u00e4ll\u00e4 tekem\u00e4tt\u00e4 kohtuulliset mukautukset ty\u00f6nantajan katsottiin p\u00e4\u00e4tt\u00e4neen luottamusmiehen ty\u00f6sopimuksen vammaisuuden perusteella syrjinn\u00e4n kiellon vastaisesti, mik\u00e4..."}