Donate to charities instead of expensive gifts for customers

Luxury Christmas gifts for customers are becoming obsolete. Companies are increasingly choosing to donate to charities and support organisations instead of giving gifts to customers. According to Sandra Masevičienė, Head of Fundraising at the association "Raudonos Nosys Gydytojai klounai", such donations are often transformed into long-term cooperation and team-building activities.

"We try to maintain a warm relationship with partners who believe in the power of good emotions and want to contribute to the emotional change that clowns create. Long-term friendships are not just one-way, it's a two-way street. Companies give financial support, become ambassadors - spreading the good word in the public space, within the company. Meanwhile, Red Noses contributes to the emotional well-being of its partners' employees. We have formats specifically for companies - our speakers conduct clowning workshops, we give presentations on the effects of humour, and we create the opportunity to experience the clown effect by organising clown visits to companies. Over the 14 years of our activity, our circle of supporters has been growing and it is gratifying that more and more people are appreciating the importance of emotional hygiene and, at the same time, the presence of medical clowns in the places where it would seem uncomfortable to laugh," shares S. Masevičienė.

According to Egidijus Langis, Managing Partner of AVOCAD, the budget for client gifts has been allocated to those who need it the most for several years in a row. "This year, we decided to join the mission of medical clowns and give smiles to sick children and the elderly. A smile helps us to overcome difficulties and the ability to laugh at the most difficult situations only shows how strong we are," says the lawyer.

According to Egidijus Langis, giving and supporting not only gives a sense of good work, but also brings the team together, and sometimes it turns into a very fun experience and frees you from the constraints of your professional life. "The legal profession is particularly bound by ethical norms and societal stereotypes. And we ourselves often get so caught up in our daily work, the competitive environment and the routine of applying the law that we forget our true values. Collaborating with the clown doctors reminded us that the beauty of life starts with a smile, which inspires others to be happy, and that all it takes is sincere attention", says Langys, introducing the joint video project.

"According to Red Noses, the amount of corporate donations varies from €50 to €20 000, with the average amount being around €300. All the funds go towards creating emotional change in children's hospitals, homes for the elderly and refugee centres. The red nose is the smallest mask in the world and can absorb sadness, bitterness, anger like a sponge... It's probably why it's so soft. And it can also create the cutest smile or the loudest laugh for everyone in the room to hear. "Red Nose Doctors Clowns has been running for 14 years and has delighted more than 220,000 Lithuanian children and seniors.

AVOCAD and RAUDONOS NOSYS video greeting here

 

The prohibition on the Court of Appeal ruling against a worse decision - what's worth knowing about it?

In the Lithuanian legal system, one of the fundamental values of justice is to ensure a fair and just trial. Of particular importance here is the principle of "non reformatio in peius", which ensures that a person who has appealed against a decision of a court of first instance does not suffer worse consequences simply because he or she has exercised his or her right to appeal. According to Domantas Velykis, a lawyer at AVOCAD, this principle is particularly relevant in criminal proceedings as well as in civil and administrative cases.

For example, in a criminal case, if the court of first instance sentenced a person to 2 years' imprisonment and the person appealed against the decision, the Court of Appeal may refer the case back to the trial court. However, even in that case, the court of first instance may not, on the basis of the above-mentioned principle, impose a sentence more severe than 2 years, unless expressly requested to do so by another party to the proceedings, such as the prosecutor. This principle protects the appellant from the negative consequences that could result from the mere exercise of the right to appeal.

AVOCAD's lawyer says that this regulation guarantees the appellant's right to appeal against a decision of the court of first instance that he considers unjust, without fear that the appellate court will make his position worse than that of the court of first instance.

"In assessing whether there has been a breach of this principle in relation to the appellant, it is necessary to establish whether the decision was worse than the one complained of. A decision which is more restrictive of a person's rights, more burdensome, etc., may be regarded as inferior. Importantly, this prohibition only applies when only one party to the proceedings appeals against the decision of the court of first instance," points out Mr Velykis

According to the lawyer, in civil proceedings, the exceptions to the prohibition of an inferior decision in the court of appeal must be interpreted very narrowly and can only be applied in those cases where a substantial public interest established in the particular case clearly so requires, in particular if the proceedings in the court of appeal are terminated without referring back to the court of first instance for a fresh decision.

The legal framework provides that the limits of an appeal may be exceeded only where the public interest so requires and the rights and legitimate interests of a person, society or the State would be prejudiced if the appeal were not exceeded.

"The position of the court practice is that the mere fact that the court of first instance misapplied legal norms when adopting the procedural decision appealed against cannot, by itself, justify either overstepping the limits of the appeal, or, consequently, worsening the appellant's legal position in the court of appeal," emphasises Domantas Velykis.

However, according to the lawyer, it is important that the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania has clarified that the appellate court must not be limited by the limits of the appeal in such a way that its decision would be fundamentally unfair and that this would violate constitutional values. The principle of proportionality is therefore also very important here.

It is important to note that the case-law of the Supreme Court of Lithuania did not consider as a violation of the prohibition to adopt a worse judgment a situation where both parties to the proceedings lodged appeals, but one of the parties contested only the allocation of the costs of the proceedings, and the Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance, even though the party that had contested the allocation of the costs of the proceedings had not raised such a claim, but did not disagree with the conclusions of the Court of First Instance, which led to the relevant decision on the allocation of the costs of proceedings, i.e. it also put forward arguments as to why the judgment of the Court of First Instance is not, in principle, correct.

The prohibition against an appellant being adversely affected is relevant to all parties to the proceedings, both in considering the future strategy of the case and the arguments and claims to be put forward in the preparation of the appeals, and in assessing the judgments of the courts of appeal and the possibility of bringing cassation appeals on the basis of a breach of this principle. "This principle is particularly important in protecting individuals from possible abuse of the judicial system or disproportionate decisions. Knowledge and understanding of this principle is important not only for legal professionals, but also for all members of society, as it helps to ensure confidence in the legal system and encourages active participation in legal processes. Only an informed and aware citizenry can effectively defend its rights and contribute to strengthening the rule of law," he stresses.

 

Termination of the employment contract when the employee's job function becomes redundant for the employer: how can the employer avoid mistakes and the employee protect his rights?

Changes in work organisation are an inevitable reality of modern business. Economic crises, technological advances or changes in the way a company operates can lead to situations where certain job functions performed by employees become redundant for the employer. In such cases, the Labour Code (" LC") gives the employer the right to terminate the employment contract, but this right is limited by strict rules. Commenting on such situations, Laura Jodeliukaitė, a lawyer at AVOCAD, stresses that dismissal of employees in such cases must be carried out with the utmost care and responsibility, as non-compliance with the rules may result in legal disputes and significant financial losses for the employer.

Grounds for and substance of termination of employment

The LC provides that an employer has the right to terminate an employment contract if the employee's job function becomes redundant for the employer due to changes in the organisation of the work or other reasons related to the employer's activities.

Thus, changes in work organisation or other reasons related to the employer's activities may make the work function performed by the employee redundant for the employer, i.e. the employer's need for the employee's work changes and the work function performed by the employee becomes superfluous.

This could be the case when a company introduces a new technology that allows the automation of certain functions. This technological change may reduce the need for certain job functions because these functions are performed faster and more efficiently by the new technology. For example, a company implements an automated customer service platform that is able to answer common questions and solve simple problems. In such cases, the need for customer service agents may be reduced as these tasks are efficiently performed by the system.

A job function performed by an employee may be considered redundant if the employer abandons the job function entirely or decides that the same or similar functions can be performed by fewer employees in order to optimise resources, etc.

The reasons for terminating an employee's contract, which are linked to the employer's activities, can be both internal (reorganisation of the work organisation, optimisation of the resources available, etc.) and external (economic or other external reasons where the employer decides to reduce the cost of the company's activities, etc.).

Conditions for dismissal of redundant staff

Termination of an employment contract when the work function performed by the employee becomes superfluous for the employer will only be lawful if certain conditions are met.

First, the changes in work organisation or other reasons related to the employer's activities are real and make the job function performed by the worker (or group of workers) redundant.

If the employee challenges the lawfulness of his dismissal, the employer will have to prove that:

  • changes in work organisation or other reasons related to the employer's activities are real;
  • these are the reasons why a particular job function performed by a particular worker (or group of workers) is redundant (the reason is directly causally linked to the fact that the job function performed by the worker has become redundant for the employer).

However, termination will be considered unlawful if the employer's structural/organisational changes turn out to be a sham.

A fictitious reason for termination of employment can be, for example, if a new person is hired to replace an employee after the dismissal. A similar situation may arise where an employer abolishes a post but soon creates a new post with identical or very similar functions. This would indicate that the employer's reasons given for the redundancy of the job function were unfounded, as the job function performed by the employee was not in fact redundant, and may have been intended to justify the termination of the contract of employment of a particular employee.

Second, the staff selection criteria are met

Where a redundant job function is performed by a number of employees but the employer plans to make only some of them redundant, it is necessary to establish and apply clear criteria for selecting employees. These criteria must be used to decide which employees will be retained and which will be made redundant.

Criteria for selecting redundant workers must be agreed with the workers' representatives

The employer adopts the criteria for selecting the workers to be made redundant, but these must be agreed with the works council or, in the absence of a works council, with the trade union. The selection for dismissal is carried out by a specially appointed committee of the employer, which also makes proposals for dismissal. If neither a works council nor a trade union is established, the employer shall not set up a panel and shall decide on the selection criteria and carry out the selection of the employees itself.

Staff members with a right of first refusal to remain

The selection criteria for redundancies must ensure the right of preference of certain workers to remain in employment. For example, priority for job retention is given to workers who are less than three years away from retirement pension age, who have three or more children under the age of 14 or who are raising a child under the age of 14 on their own, as well as in other cases provided for in the LC. The right of preference applies only if the worker's qualifications are not inferior to those of other workers of the same specialisation employed by the undertaking (except for the exception provided for in the LC).

In addition, the employment contract cannot be terminated in the case of a pregnant worker, workers with children under the age of three, or in other cases provided for by law.

Thirdly, the dismissed worker must be offered a vacancy

The employer must offer the dismissed worker other vacancies, if any. The first vacancies to be offered shall be those which are appropriate to the employee's occupation, qualifications and, where appropriate, medical condition. If there are no such vacancies, or if the worker refuses to take them, any other job which the worker could perform in accordance with his abilities and state of health may be offered. The employer is not obliged to offer jobs for which the worker is not suitably qualified or does not meet the other requirements for the vacancy.

The employment contract can only be terminated if there are no vacancies in the workplace during the notice period (up to five working days before the end of the notice period), to which the employee can be transferred with his/her consent.

Fourth, the time limits for giving notice of impending dismissal are met

The employer must comply with the statutory notice periods. If the employment relationship lasts for more than one year, the employee must be given one month's notice of dismissal. If the employment relationship lasts less than a year, the notice period is two weeks. It should be noted that longer notice periods apply to vulnerable groups of workers.

The dismissed worker is also entitled to severance pay. If the employment relationship has lasted less than one year, the payment is half of his average salary. If the employment relationship lasted more than one year, the amount of the payment shall be equal to two times his average salary.

Termination of an employment contract, when the employee's job function becomes redundant for the employer, is a complex process that requires special attention and care from the employer. Compliance with all legal requirements and procedures can reduce the risk of legal disputes, protect workers' rights and avoid financial losses due to unfair dismissal.