Ultima Ratio, or Why I Should Not Be "Fired" from Work

The right to work is a right that includes not only the right of a person to work but also the right to be protected from unlawful dismissal from work. During legal representation, as a lawyer, I frequently have to provide a broader interpretation of this right, both before the employer and the court. An employment relationship is a standard transaction during which the employer pays remuneration to the employee for the work performed. Apart from a series of rights, such as rest, leave, etc., several principles operate in labor law. However, one of the main principles, which can be said to represent the "axis of the employment relationship," is the principle of Ultima ratio (the last resort);

An echo of this principle is found in Part 3 of Article 1 of the Labor Code, which states that: "An employment contract may not define norms different from those provided by this Law if they worsen the condition of the employee." Before we move directly to the principle and explain it, it is necessary to know that an employer does not have the right to dismiss an employee from their held position, except on the grounds specified in Article 47 of the Organic Law of Georgia. There are a total of 14 grounds, and in the case of the employer's initiative, the following should be highlighted:
g) a gross violation by the employee of the obligation imposed on them by an individual employment contract, a collective agreement, and/or internal labor regulations;
h) a violation by the employee of the obligation imposed on them by an individual employment contract, a collective agreement, and/or internal labor regulations, if any measure of disciplinary liability provided for by an individual employment contract, a collective agreement, and/or internal labor regulations has already been applied against the employee within the last 1 year;

How does this principle work?
This principle acts as a direct, "living principle" during the relationship between the employee and the employer. This means that the dismissal of an employee must be used only in the case when, given the nature of the misconduct committed by the employee, applying a lighter sanction has lost its purpose. The measure of disciplinary liability is defined by the internal regulations. In turn, the employment contract must explicitly state that the internal labor regulations are an integral part of the employment contract, and the employee must be familiar with them (the legislator does not specify this, but the familiarization must, of course, be confirmed by a signature). Otherwise, the internal labor regulations are not effective and cannot be used as an instrument against the employee. The role of a lawyer specifically for the purposes of applying this principle is quite significant, as employers mostly accumulate "reprimands" against the employee as a means of self-defense;

A measure of disciplinary liability is applied to an employee solely for the purpose of "educating" the employee so that they do not commit such an act in the future. It is meant to correct the existing situation, improve it, make the employee better, raise their qualifications, and compel them to act more prudently and thoughtfully—and not for the purpose of giving the employer the right to use this lever on any ground. Let's consider a simple example taken from practice (I did not participate as a lawyer in this dispute, but it is an interesting scenario). The employer had established a so-called dress code, according to which the employee had to appear at work in "business attire." Despite this, the employee showed up at work twice in sportswear, and the employer made a decision to first issue a reprimand and then dismiss them. The court explained that, despite the "nature of the violation," it would consider this violation as a ground for dismissal only if the action was accompanied by "harm" (unreceived benefit, lost income, destroyed goods, etc. The primary characteristic of harm can be considered damage and loss in monetary, material form, which a party suffered as a result of the impact of another person/the other party). A disciplinary offense and its accompanying result are a basis for dismissal only if the violation is accompanied by harm and/or such an action which, although not directly indicating harm, creates a risk that the employee's behavior will affect the employer's reputation and business image, inevitably reflecting on their income. Harm, in turn, must be proven by the party claiming to have suffered it. Accordingly, the employer had to prove that they suffered harm due to the employee's behavior. Of course, in this case, aside from the employer's image, harm could not be proven in any other form. Consequently, the employee was reinstated to their position, and the employer was ordered to pay the lost income (salary) up to the time of reinstatement. As for the lost income, unfortunately, during my recent legal practice, the court's approach has changed: instead of paying the lost income up to reinstatement, the court substitutes it with "compensation" if the position is occupied. Accordingly, a person might litigate for 4 years but receive compensation for only 8/9 months of labor remuneration;

The principle of Ultima ratio also operates when the employment relationship continues between the parties. Specifically, if another, relatively less severe measure of disciplinary liability can be applied to the employee, a severe measure should not be applied. This principle does not include the right of the employee, within the scope of their private autonomy, to disobey the rules established by the employer. Ultima ratio is a "lever" for the continuation of the employment contract against the employer as the stronger party;

Regarding the breach of obligations by the employee, there is a clear line between a gross violation and an ordinary violation. Specifically, if we are talking about a gross violation, it must inevitably be accompanied by the fact of harm, and furthermore, after this violation, the continuation of the employment relationship with the employee must have "lost its purpose." How "gross" the violation is is a matter of individual assessment in each separate case, during which the specific circumstances of the case are taken into account. In order to assess the severity of the violator's action, the purpose of the service where the employee works, the employee's function, and their duties must first be examined. Would appearing at work under the influence of alcohol be considered a "gross" violation of an obligation? There is no unequivocal answer to this question, because to answer it, one must consider: the work performed by the violating person prior to the violation, whether any measure of disciplinary liability had been declared against them before the violation, what kind of employee they are, etc. This example is not intended to create chaos in employment relations but conversely shows that it is necessary for every specific case to be considered with the factual circumstances preceding the dismissal from work. When explaining and/or interpreting this issue, as a lawyer, I mostly encounter the circumstance that the employer places immeasurably large "demands" on the employee, and the latter is forced to fulfill these demands;

It is necessary for the employee to know that issuing a reprimand to them has a specific purpose: to avoid the violation in the future. Moreover, the employee has the right to appeal this in court if the procedure for its one-time appeal is not defined in the internal regulations for the employee. During the disciplinary offense itself (in its written justification), the following must be stated:
What does the violation consist of, specifically which part of the internal regulations and/or employment contract was violated?
What factual situation confirms the existence of the violation?
Which document/evidence confirms the existence of the violation?
What harm was caused to the employer by this action?
Is it possible to use a less severe disciplinary action lever?
Employees in some cases do not pay attention to the application of disciplinary liability against them; however, this can be used against them when the employer "needs" it. The employee must absolutely appeal the measure of disciplinary liability applied against them, naturally, in court. As a lawyer, in most cases, I encounter this problem where a person has received several measures of disciplinary liability that the "employer" accumulates, while the employee only "discovers" this after being dismissed;

Ultima ratio also includes evaluating the employee's action from a cause-and-effect perspective before their dismissal from work. Specifically, maintaining a "reasonable balance" between the violation (misconduct) and the dismissal. A reasonable balance means something simple: the employee arriving late to work twice, a minor violation of the attendance rule, ignoring the dress code at work in some instances, and such relatively simple issues that do not bring "harm" to the employer should not be grounds for terminating the employment contract. As for the violation itself during a disciplinary offense, it is additionally evaluated as follows:
Frequency of the violation – For example, a daily violation of the attendance rule can, of course, be a ground. However, violating the attendance rule twice a year cannot and will not be considered the frequency necessary to terminate an employment contract.
Severity of the violation – Severity, as we noted above, must be materialized. Because if the severity of the violation is primarily expressed in harm, specifically "in monetary form," if there is no specific amount of deficit, it is difficult to prove the severity of the action;

Cause-and-effect perspective – This means there must be a cause-and-effect relationship between the frequency of the violation and the severity of the violation, specifically, the frequency of the violation causing the severity of the violation. During the employment relationship, priority is given to preserving the employment contract rather than terminating it. This means that the Labor Code establishes measures of disciplinary liability so that the employer, if they wish to "correct" the employee, must use this lever and only terminate the employment relationship if there is no other way. As for the procedure of dismissal from work itself, this rule is strictly and specifically defined by the Labor Code of Georgia, which the employer must mandatorily follow. From a procedural standpoint, the employer must issue the order of dismissal in written form. Until the employer presents you with a written notice regarding the termination of the employment contract, the oral verbal instruction of a manager, boss, etc., has no "great significance." After you receive the notice regarding the termination/cancellation of the employment contract, which must absolutely be in written form, you must apply to the employer within 30 calendar days of its receipt and request that they provide you with a written justification regarding the termination of the employment contract. The employer, in turn, is obliged to provide you with the said justification for the termination of the employment contract within 7 calendar days. Justification means that it is mandatory to indicate on what basis, based on what factual circumstance/circumstances, and also based on what legal norms you are being dismissed from the held position. The protection of labor rights in today's Georgia is carried out through the realization of the rights granted to the employee. The employer is always the stronger party. The employee realizes their right by appealing to the court through a lawyer. The principle of Ultima ratio is one of the principles that protect the employee, their constitutional right to labor;
In case of additional questions, please contact me: 
Attorney Guram Kontuadze, full legal and advocacy services throughout the territory of Georgia;
Signal/Tel/viber/WhatsApp/Telegram +995 591 976 764; facebook; 
e-mail: guram.kontuadze@gmail.com; We Set Precedents;  

ადვოკატი თბილისში ადვოკატი საქართველოში ადვოკატი რუსთავში ადვოკატი თელავში ადვოკატი მარნეულში ადვოკატი ზუგდიდში ადვოკატი ქუთაისში ადვოკატი ბათუმში ადვოკატი სურამში ადვოკატი ვაკეში ადვოკატი ვერაზე ადვოკატი ციხეზე ადვოკატი წალკაში ადვოკატი საბურთალოზე ადვოკატი ვარკეთილში ადვოკატი ახალ რუსთავში ადვოკატი  ახალ რუსთავში ადვოკატი დმანისში ადვოკატი ბოლნისში ადვოკატი საგარეჯოში ადვოკატი მიწის სამოქალაქოს ადვოკატი საადვოკატო მომსახურება თბილისში საადვოკატო მომსახურება რუსთავში საადვოკატო მომსახურება თელავში საადვოკატო მომსახურება მარნეულში საადვოკატო მომსახურება ზუგდიდში საადვოკატო მომსახურება ქუთაისში საადვოკატო მომსახურება  ბათუმში საადვოკატო მომსახურება  საგარეჯოში საადვოკატო მომსახურება  ახალ რუსთავში საადვოკატო მომსახურება ახალ რუსთავში იურისტი ახალ რუსთავში იურისტი დმანისში იურისტი  თბილისში იურისტი საქართველოში იურისტი რუსთავში იურისტი   ბათუმში იურისტი ქუთაისში იურისტი ზუგდიდში სამოქალაქო საქმის ადვოკატი სისხლის სამართლის ადვოკატი ადმინისტრაციული სამართლის ადვოკატი მიწის საკითხებზე მომუშავე ადვოკატი განქორწინებაზე მომუშავე ადვოკატი ქონებაზე მომუშავე ადვოკატი ქონების ადვოკატი ადვოკატი სამოქალაქო საქმეზე ადვოკატი სისხლის სამართლის საქმეზე განქორწინების შემდგომ რა ხდება განქორწინების შედეგები ადვოკატი სამოქალაქო საკითხებში სამოქალაქო საქმის ადვოკატი საქართველოში სამოქალაქო საქმის ადვოკატი ზუგდიდში სამოქალაქო საქმის ადვოკატი ბათუმში სამოქალაქო საქმის ადვოკატი საგარეჯოში სამოქალაქო საქმის ადვოკატი  მარნეულში სამოქალაქო საქმის ადვოკატი თელავში ადმინისტრაციული საქმის ადვოკატი თბილისში ადმინისტრაციული საქმის ადვოკატი საქართველოში ადმინისტრაციული საქმის ადვოკატი ზუგდიდში სისხლის სამართლის  საქმის ადვოკატი თბილისში სისხლის სამართლის  საქმის ადვოკატი საქართველოში სისხლის სამართლის საქმის ადვოკატი რუსთავში სისხლის სამართლის საქმის ადვოკატი ზუგდიდში სისხლის სამართლის საქმის ადვოკატი საგარეჯოში სისხლის სამართლის საქმის ადვოკატი  მარნეულში სისხლის სამართლის საქმის ადვოკატი თბილისში სისხლის სამართლის  საქმის ადვოკატი ბათუმში სისხლის სამართლის  საქმის ადვოკატი საგარეჯოში ბიზნეს ადვოკატი რუსთავში ბიზნეს ადვოკატი თბილისში ბიზნეს ადვოკატი ბათუმში ბიზნეს ადვოკატი ქუთაისში სტარტაპ ადვოკატი თბილისში საადვოკატო ბიურო თბილისში საადვოკატო ბიურო  საქართველოში საადვოკატო ბიურო  რუსთავში საადვოკატო ბიურო ზუგდიდში საადვოკატო ბიურო  საგარეჯოში საადვოკატო ბიურო  მარნეულში საადვოკატო ბიურო თელავში Юрист в Тбилиси Юрист в Грузии Юрист в Рустави Юрист в Телави Юрист в Марнеули Юрист в Зугдиди Юрист в Кутаиси Юрист в Батуми Юрист в Сурами Юрист в Ваке Юрист в Вере Юрист в Цихе Юрист в Цалке Юрист в Сабуртало Юрист в Варкетили Юрист в Ахал Рустави Юрист в Ахал Рустави Юрист в Дманиси Юрист в Болниси Юрист в Сагарехо Юрист по земельным гражданским делам Юридические услуги в Тбилиси Юридические услуги в Рустави Юридические услуги в Телави Юридические услуги в Марнеули Юридические услуги в Зугдиди Юридические услуги в Кутаиси Юридические услуги в Батуми Юридические услуги в Сагарехо Юридические услуги в Ахал Рустави Юридические услуги в Ахал Рустави Юрист в Ахал Рустави Юрист в Дманиси Юрист в Тбилиси Юрист в Грузии Юрист Юрист Юрист в Рустави, Батуми Юрист в Кутаиси Юрист в Зугдиди Юрист по гражданским делам Юрист по уголовным делам Юрист по административному праву Юрист по земельным вопросам Юрист по разводам Юрист по недвижимости Юрист по недвижимости Юрист по гражданским делам Юрист по уголовным делам Что происходит после развода? Юрист по гражданским делам Юрист по гражданским делам в Грузии Юрист по гражданским делам в Зугдиди Юрист по гражданским делам в Батуми Юрист по гражданским делам в Сагареджо Юрист по гражданским делам в Марнеули Юрист по гражданским делам в Телави Юрист по административному праву в Тбилиси Юрист по административному праву в Грузии Юрист по административному праву в Зугдиди Юрист по уголовным делам в Тбилиси Юрист по уголовным делам в Грузии Юрист по уголовным делам в Рустави Юрист по уголовным делам в Зугдиди Юрист по уголовным делам в Сагареджо Юрист по уголовным делам в Марнеули Юрист в Тбилиси Юрист по уголовным делам в Батуми Юрист по уголовным делам в Сагареджо Юрист по коммерческому праву в Рустави Юрист по коммерческому праву в Тбилиси Юрист по коммерческому праву в Батуми Юрист по коммерческому праву в Кутаиси Юрист по стартапам в Тбилиси Юридическая фирма в Тбилиси Юридическая фирма в Грузии Юридическая фирма в Рустави Юридическая фирма в Зугдиди Юридическая фирма в Сагареджо Юридическая фирма в Марнеули Юридическая фирма в Телави Lawyer in Tbilisi Lawyer in Georgia Lawyer in Rustavi Lawyer in Telavi Lawyer in Marneuli Lawyer in Zugdidi Lawyer in Kutaisi Lawyer in Batumi Lawyer in Surami Lawyer in Vake Lawyer in Vera Lawyer in Tsikhe Lawyer in Tsalka Lawyer in Saburtalo Lawyer in Varketili Lawyer in Akhal Rustavi Lawyer in Akhal Rustavi Lawyer in Dmanisi Lawyer in Bolnisi Lawyer in Sagarejo Lawyer in Land Civil Lawyer Legal services in Tbilisi Legal services in Rustavi Legal services in Telavi Legal services in Marneuli Legal services in Zugdidi Legal services in Kutaisi Legal services in Batumi Legal services in Sagarejo Legal services in Akhal Rustavi Legal services in Akhal Rustavi Lawyer in Akhal Rustavi Lawyer in Dmanisi Lawyer in Tbilisi Lawyer in Georgia Lawyer Lawyer in Rustavi Lawyer in Batumi Lawyer in Kutaisi Lawyer in Zugdidi Civil lawyer Criminal lawyer Administrative law lawyer Land lawyer Divorce lawyer Property lawyer Property lawyer Civil lawyer Criminal lawyer What happens after divorce? Lawyer in civil matters Civil lawyer in Georgia Civil lawyer in Zugdidi Civil lawyer in Batumi Civil lawyer in Sagarejo Civil lawyer in Marneuli Civil lawyer in Telavi Administrative lawyer in Tbilisi Administrative lawyer in Georgia Administrative lawyer in Zugdidi Criminal lawyer in Tbilisi Criminal lawyer in Georgia Criminal lawyer in Rustavi Criminal lawyer in Zugdidi Criminal lawyer in Sagarejo Criminal lawyer in Marneuli Lawyer in Tbilisi Criminal Lawyer in Batumi Criminal Lawyer in Sagarejo Business Lawyer in Rustavi Business Lawyer in Tbilisi Business Lawyer in Batumi Business Lawyer in Kutaisi Startup Lawyer in Tbilisi Law Firm in Tbilisi Law Firm in Georgia Law Firm in Rustavi Law Firm in Zugdidi Law Firm in Sagarejo Law Firm in Marneuli Law Firm in Telavi