During the hearing, both parties supported their positions in full. If for compensation for the use of personal vehicles for business purposes, or rather their deviation from no problems (the plaintiff relied only on verbal agreements with the director and on their personal relationships), then part of the calculation and payment of wages were found very amusing facts. The employer submitted to the court timesheets employee, the employment contract, orders, statements of earnings. According to an employment contract the employee was installed eight-hour working day in the five-day workweek. Timesheet time tracking the same contained information that the employee has worked five (!) hours per day in the five-day workweek.
Since, under Article 57 of the Labor Code of wages – remuneration for work which the employer must pay the employee for work performed under an employment contract, depending on its complexity, quantity, quality, working conditions and qualifications of the employee taking into account the actual time worked, as well as for periods included in working time, it turned out that employer regularly pays the employee wages at the rate of 25 working hours per week, not 40, as provided for the employment contract. The court immediately puzzled by the employer question, what is the basis content of timesheets, prilagaevshegosa to the employment contract? The more the employee claimed that he worked for all eight hours, sometimes longer. Launched into a lengthy employer explaining that the employee by virtue of their duties under the employment contract and had to move the objects by monitoring the implementation of works on these objects. But taking advantage of the freedom of movement and personal relationship with the director of the company employee openly ignored their duties under the contract, often not appearing on the work at all. Since, as we have noted, personal relationship with an employee director were very close, then fire it in compliance with the cessation of the employment contract was "is awkward," he's set and five hours time sheet by mutual oral agreement. Indirectly evidence of the existence of such an agreement the employer believed that employee for all time (three years), never expressed dissatisfaction with the amount of wages.
However, no documents (more agreements with the employee on the establishment of working time, registers the arrival-departure employee orders) confirm the validity of his arguments to show the employer could not. The outcome of the trial was that the employer offered the employee a settlement agreement to pay unpaid on drudovomu contract wages. Of course, the payout was set much smaller than the claim, but to pay all still had. So, what we see on the facts of the employment relationship? The employer failed to think through and organize the system of internal control over the actions of their employees and the proper order of attendance. Do not think that this is important. The standard position – "Why do we need this? We've all is well! "- Not an employer has in the courtroom. Once again appeal to the employers: in your best interest to the essence of the relationship with workers was documented. Must be very scrupulous and careful attitude to the issues of timely and most comprehensive presentation of such documents.