Unjustified Grounds for Termination and Enhanced Employee Protection

This section identifies the reasons for termination that are explicitly prohibited under Ethiopian law, offering employees higher protection.

Reasons Explicitly Deemed Unjustified (Article 26(2))

In alignment with Article 5 of the International Labor Organization’s Termination of Employment Convention, 1982 (No. 158), Article 26(2) of the Ethiopian Labour Proclamation explicitly lists several reasons that are not considered justified for terminating an employment contract. These provisions serve to reinforce fundamental employee rights and eliminate discriminatory practices in the workplace.

The reasons explicitly deemed unjustified are:

• The employee’s membership in a trade union or participation in lawful trade union activities.
• The employee’s seeking or serving as an employee representative.
• The employee’s lodging a complaint against the employer or participating in a suit filed in court or other claims.
• The employee’s nationality, sex, religion, political opinion, marital status, race, color, family responsibilities, lineage, pregnancy, or social status.

Higher Protection Afforded to Employees (e.g., Unconditional Reinstatement)

Ethiopian law provides greater protection for pregnant employees than the ILO Convention. While Article 5 of the Convention lists “absence from work during maternity leave” as an unjustified reason, Ethiopian law broadly includes “pregnancy” in general terms. This means that any reason based on pregnancy, including absence due to maternity leave, is not considered a competent and sufficient reason for terminating an employment contract. Articles 87(6) and (7) further stipulate that a female employee cannot be dismissed during pregnancy and within four months from the date of childbirth, except for specific misconduct (Article 27(a)-(t)) or redundancy (Article 29(3)). This implies that dismissal for reasons listed in Article 28(1) is prohibited during this protected period.

The Cassation Bench has addressed the transferability of pre-natal leave to post-natal leave. In Teacher Mulunesh Melesse v. Walia General Primary School (File No. 121063, Vol. 20), the court gave an affirmative answer to whether pre-natal leave can be transferred to post-natal leave, making dismissal for absence during such transferred leave unlawful. However, the court’s reasoning was noted to contain a contradiction, as it did not definitively conclude on the transferability itself before ruling on the dismissal’s legality.

The objective of listing these as “unjustified reasons” is to provide greater protection for fundamental employee rights and to eliminate discriminatory practices. Employees dismissed for these reasons receive higher protection. While Ethiopian law does not differentiate in the amount of compensation, it unconditionally protects the right to reinstatement for an employee dismissed for the reasons listed in Article 26(2). If an employer terminates an employment contract for these mentioned reasons, they have an obligation to reinstate the employee to work. This obligation, by itself, serves as a strong deterrent against discriminatory or retaliatory dismissals, protecting the employee from being dismissed with compensation unless it is by their own will. This explicit enumeration and the provision of unconditional reinstatement underscore the law’s commitment to restoring the employment relationship and reinforcing fundamental rights.