Drivers Vindicated After 15 Years as Court Dismisses Employer Appeal

Supreme Court upholds compensation, ruling dismissals were not justified by redundancy.

Header Image

 

Cyprus’s Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed an appeal by a contracting company, upholding an earlier ruling in favour of four former concrete mixer drivers who were dismissed in 2011 on grounds of redundancy.

The four workers had sought compensation for unfair dismissal, arguing that the company’s claim of reduced workload did not reflect the actual circumstances at the time.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court found that the employer had failed to establish that genuine redundancy conditions existed. It noted that new staff had been hired for similar duties shortly before the dismissals.

According to the ruling, the company’s argument that the terminations were linked to modernisation and a reduction in work was not supported by sufficient evidence.

The court also stressed that the burden of proving redundancy rests solely with the employer. A general reference to financial decline, without specific supporting evidence, was found to be insufficient.

As a result, the appeal was dismissed in full, bringing the long-running case to a close in favour of the four drivers.

The trial court had previously concluded that the dismissals were not carried out under real redundancy conditions and proceeded to determine compensation for each of the four employees under the relevant provisions of labour legislation.

The compensation was calculated individually for each driver, based on the details of his employment, and separate final judgments were issued in each case.

Following the Supreme Court’s rejection of the appeal, those compensation awards remain fully in force, along with an order for legal costs in favour of the workers.

Source: CNA

Comments Posting Policy

The owners of the website www.politis.com.cy reserve the right to remove reader comments that are defamatory and/or offensive, or comments that could be interpreted as inciting hate/racism or that violate any other legislation. The authors of these comments are personally responsible for their publication. If a reader/commenter whose comment is removed believes that they have evidence proving the accuracy of its content, they can send it to the website address for review. We encourage our readers to report/flag comments that they believe violate the above rules. Comments that contain URLs/links to any site are not published automatically.