Case No.: 212438
Date: May 01, 2014 E.C. (Ethiopian Calendar)
Applicant: Captain Biniyam Alene
Respondent: Abyssinia Flight Services Private Limited Company
The judgment rendered by the Cassation Bench of the Federal Supreme Court under Record No. 212603 resolves a dispute concerning termination of employment between Ethiopian Airlines (Applicant) and Ato Tekeste Kasse (Respondent). This judgment provides significant insights into the freedom of expression of an employee, the legality of termination of employment contracts, and the right to reinstatement.
Key Legal Interpretation
The key legal principle reflected in the decision rendered by the Cassation Bench of the Federal Supreme Court of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia in Cassation File No. 212438 on May 01, 2014 E.C. is as follows:
When an employee, acting as a labor union representative, expresses shortcomings of the organization or violations of employees’ rights based on their lawful freedom of expression, this act should not be considered defamation of the organization. Therefore, terminating an employee by citing this as a reason is unlawful. Furthermore, in cases of unlawful dismissal, the employee has the right to reinstatement, and this right should not be denied unless the employer demonstrates that the employee’s return to work would cause significant disruption due to the nature of the work or the course of the litigation.
- Employee’s Freedom of Expression and Lawfulness of Dismissal: When an employee, particularly acting as a union representative, expresses shortcomings of the organization or violations of employees’ rights, this should not be considered “defamation of the employer” as stipulated in Article 27(1)(ሸ) of the Labor Proclamation No. 1156/2011. Such speech, being part of the freedom of expression, cannot be a lawful ground for terminating the employee. Dismissal based on this reason constitutes unlawful dismissal.
- Right to Reinstatement: If an employer unlawfully dismisses an employee, the employee has the right to be reinstated to their position, pursuant to Articles 43(1) and (2) of the Labor Proclamation. This right can only be denied under Article 43(3) of the Proclamation, “if the court is satisfied that the employee’s reinstatement would cause significant disruption because of the nature of the work or the perception that may arise in connection with the hearing of the case”. This disruption must be “significant.” Unless the employer demonstrates with evidence that the employee’s return to work would cause substantial damage or disruption, the employee’s right to reinstatement should not be denied.
Background of the Case
The Respondent, Ato Tekeste Kasse, served as an Aircraft Maintenance Trainer and Deputy Secretary of the Labor Union at Ethiopian Airlines. The Applicant, Ethiopian Airlines, stated that the contract of employment of the Respondent was terminated on the grounds that he defamed their name and reputation and damaged their relationship with other employees. The Respondent filed a lawsuit claiming that the termination was unlawful because it was not established based on the collective agreement, requesting to be paid unpaid salaries and to be reinstated, or, failing that, to be paid severance pay, notice period pay, one month’s full salary, payment for the 2020 E.C. annual leave, and to be given a certificate of work experience.
Applicant’s Response
Ethiopian Airlines stated that the Respondent was not dismissed because he was a member of the Labor Union, but because he defamed the organization using the media and disrupted good relations in the workplace. In particular, they cited that in an interview with a media outlet called “Yegna Tube,” he stated that the organization had no principles for hiring and firing employees, that employees were made to be subject only to the leaders, that the organization and its leadership did not care about Ethiopian employees but only about foreign nationals, and that it used COVID-19 to intimidate and torture employees. It argued that this act was a legal reason for termination. It further added that even if the dismissal was considered unlawful, the trust between them had been severely damaged, and the Respondent should not be reinstated.
Decisions of the Lower Courts
After examining the arguments and evidence presented by both parties, the Federal First Instance Court stated that the interview given by the Respondent was not defamatory to the organization but an expression of their freedom of speech. On this basis, it ruled that the dismissal of the Respondent was unlawful, ordering that the Respondent be paid six months of back pay and reinstated.
The Applicant appealed to the Federal High Court, but the appeal was dismissed according to Article 377 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Cassation Bench’s Examination and Decision
The Cassation Bench confirmed that the lower court found no evidence that the Respondent, in the interview he gave, had committed the offense of defaming the Applicant organization or disrupting good relations, thereby violating the provisions of Article 27(1)(ሸ) of the Labor Proclamation No. 1156/2011. In addition, by stating that the Respondent’s statements were an expression of the employees’ rights as a union representative, it emphasized that the lower court had not committed a fundamental error of law in concluding that the dismissal was unlawful.
Regarding the request for reinstatement, Article 43(1)(2) of the Labor Proclamation No. 1156/2011 stipulates that in the event of unlawful dismissal, the employee may be ordered to be reinstated. Article 43(3) stipulates that the employee may not be reinstated if, due to the nature of the work or the perception gained from the litigation process, their continued employment would cause significant disruption. The problem must be significant, it said.
The court stated that, considering the Respondent’s position as an aircraft maintenance technician, his reinstatement would not cause significant disruption to the Applicant. Citing its previous binding interpretations (Record Nos. 37454 and 64079) (cases involving a security guard and a financial controller), it stated that the Respondent’s case was different from those and that the Applicant had failed to demonstrate that the Respondent’s reinstatement would cause significant damage. Therefore, it ruled that there was no fundamental error of law in the decision to reinstate the Respondent.
In addition, the Cassation Bench, citing Article 80(3) of the Constitution and Article 10 of the Federal Courts Proclamation No. 1234/2013, clarified that it did not have jurisdiction over factual findings reached after weighing evidence. It also stated that the lower court’s principle of evidence assessment was not incorrect.
Decision
The Cassation Bench of the Federal Supreme Court rendered the following decision:
- The decisions of the Federal First Instance Court and the Federal High Court are upheld pursuant to Article 348(1) of the Civil Procedure Code.
- The Respondent should be paid one year of back pay and be reinstated to his position.