On the resentment dissatisfied nods feebly somewhere upwards, showing hung on the wall "paper" in the frame as if to say, the management ordered to him and claims (and who dares to interfere with the boss!) Zealous fighters against the theft of the best, seemingly trying to motives catch dishonest, exposing searched all without discrimination ...
Justified if "preventive" measures? In terms of management - by far. And from the standpoint of the law? Can the leaders hold a total or spot checks,and subordinates - meekly take his cap and eviscerate the personal stuff? On the one hand, trapping, thief, thieves like to warn catch - answer. That is, there is in some sense, crime prevention, especially if the corresponding item incorporated in the employment contract, contract. On the other hand - such a struggle with the perpetrators and prevention, according to some lawyers - neither more nor less than arbitrariness and lawlessness. Experts claim that those who flouted the law itself must be put in place - at least for the edification of others. Litigation will stretch on for months and even years, but it would be gratifying victory over presumptuous bureaucrats, blind executor of someone's decrees. It is true that the winners do not really hear it. Are they in Ukraine?
BRICKS IN YOUR POCKET Taikov not carry away. There is a special regime companies that require increased monitoring of staff working conditions. These include, for example, a strategically important objects of the defense industry, the company Goznak where printed money, strict reporting forms, plants yuvelirproma producing articles made of gold and other precious metals. There is debugged very rigid system of overt and covert control in various stages of production up to the constant use of CCTV cameras, the mandatory changing people, and after work - the mandatory shower to exclude evidence of theft and embezzlement.
- Acting on such an enterprise, the person is aware that he had to work under strictly controlled - said the expert Kharkiv Human Rights Group Arkady Bushchenko. - Similarly, engaging in some kind of business structure, a private firm, the candidate agrees that he will work under the constant supervision and should be subject to regulation of the employment contract. "Good" for some intervention in his life held together by his signature in the agreement or contract. The question is, how it is justified, and if so, to what extent. Suppose the company manufactures the bricks, and working after the change of searching - well, whether it is sensible solution, if at all desire a brick in your pocket can not hide and will not carry away unnoticed?
However, if the measures taken to tighten control after the signing of the contract (and at the time of this claim it was not incorporated), and the administration had failed to warn the employee, according to the Labor Code that might be characterized as a substantial change in working conditions and, therefore, be subject to a labor dispute .
5 tips how to overcome "The Guardian" ORDER
1. If the contract of employment with the employer, not built on personal inspection of the situation, and it is not sealed with your signature, the requirement to show the contents of bags, pockets and so is illegal. You can not obey him. In case of refusal to refer a violation of the rights guaranteed by the Basic Law.
2. The administration and protection of the enterprise may be appealed through the courts. To this end, treatment should be made clear who, where, when, under what circumstances, trying to expose you to search, apply a physical force that degrade your dignity and honor. Stock up on the instructions issued by the administration about the examination, as well as affidavits of at least two witnesses - these materials will enhance the evidence base in the trial.
3. You should not go on about the leadership, offering to sign a retroactive additions to the labor contract in the form of consent for examination - the chances of winning the case of the applicant in this case are reduced to nothing.
4. Require compensation for both moral and material damages caused by management actions. Attach medical reports, certified extracts from medical records, receipts for purchase of drugs, confirming that humiliated the honor and dignity of your check and discord with health are in causal connection.
5. Do not be afraid of publicity, threats of dismissal, punishment, and other reprisals, as well as provocation by the administration. The law is on your side. Only need perseverance, patience, competent legal advice.
"Legitimized" personal search - IT Outrage
From a letter:
"Our metallurgical plant inspection practice of passing on the bags. For refusal of this humiliating procedure should be making ignorant from a legal point of view of the detention protocols, which are then sent to the place of work in the department to take disciplinary action. I kept trying to figure out, based on which security is behaving this way. They showed me the manual where it says that it has the right to make personal inspection of things. And I must give her things for inspection? In my functional duties of such an item no. Please suggest how to act correctly in this situation. Appealed to the district, city, oblprokuraturu - replied that security has acted within the provisions of the instructions. I want to go to court - in violation of any article of the law refer to? When one of my searches were seized personal belongings - photographic. After a complaint to the prosecutor offered me to pick them up (why would retire?). Can I sue for compensation for material and moral damage? Help, please! Sincerely, Oleg Kumach. "
"The actions of the administration of the company, which employs Oleg S., constitute a flagrant violation of workers' rights, the Constitution, the Laws of Ukraine and laws.
Thus, according to Article 28 of the Constitution everyone has the right to respect for his dignity and not be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment. Screening of bags at the entrance of the plant is uniquely demeaning employees. Art. 55 of the Constitution, Art. 6 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine guarantees the protection of the rights and freedoms, as well as legal protection. Everyone, therefore, has the right to challenge in court decisions and actions of public authorities and officials.
Actions by officials of the plant, grossly violating the rights of workers, may be appealed and is not lawful. These must be recognized and regulations of administration (orders, instructions) on the right of workers to examine the company-through. Administration of the plant must ensure that such an order not to expose workers to humiliating and illegal searches and inspections.
The search can be made only employees of the inquiry body (police) or by the investigator and only if a criminal case if there is sufficient reason to believe that persons are instruments of crime, things and objects obtained by criminal means, as well as other objects and documents that are relevant to establish the truth of the case (art. 177 Code of Criminal Procedure). Such person shall be searched by a reasoned decision by an investigator with the prosecutor or his deputy.
The search and seizure of the person he objects and documents can be made the above officials without an order only in cases where the citizen is physically detained by authorized persons (police officers, an investigator), and there is reason to believe that the detainee is carrying a weapon or other objects that represent a danger to others, or trying to get rid of the evidence incriminating him or other persons in committing a crime, as well as the detention of the suspect (Art. 184 Code of Criminal Procedure). But these cases may also occur only after the criminal case.
No criminal case employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, in accordance with paragraph 6 of art. 11 of the Law of Ukraine "On Militia" have the right to inspect the perpetrators of crimes or offenses, and items that are in their vehicles, and seize documents and items that can be used as material evidence or to harm their health. Employees of the plant such rights are not vested. Therefore, all actions for inspection of personal belongings factory workers are illegal.
It is regrettable that the prosecutors, which Mr. Kumach to file a complaint of unlawful actions by the administration and protection of the plant, not shielded from the applicant's discretion and did not take any measures to protest illegal instructions, taken by the administration of the enterprise. Offer to take illegally seized photographic is yet another confirmation of the illegality of actions.
I recommend Mr. Kumacheva apply to the court at the location of the plant with a claim for recognition of the actions of its officials for inspection of things illegal, and recover from them in favor of the applicant's material and moral damage. Victor Chevguz, lawyer, PhD in Law. "