https://cdnimg.rg.ru/img/content/193/40/80/7p_otpusk_sprava_d_850.jpg

the Court case in question began with the dismissal of the employee of Federal service of execution of punishments. The citizen went and demanded to pay her about 600, 000 compensation for not used within nine years of release. First case was tried by the local courts. Then came the Supreme court, which said, which is a crucial and important in the resolution of such disputes.

fifteen years our heroine worked in the prison office of Adygea chief accountant. Then retired on superannuation. At dismissal she received compensation for not used in the previous year leave of absence.

But it turned out that a former accountant of unused vacation much more – as much for nine years of service. A citizen requested that the Department complete the calculation.

Initially, the Federal penitentiary service said that it was possible to pay her compensation for six years. But then there was a service check and the decision to pay for past was cancelled. After the inspection, it appeared that the accountant is still on vacation went – it was seen in different circumstantial evidence. So, the employee was paid compensation for a Spa treatment. And such payments law enforcement officers get only based on the holiday certificate. Confused inspectors and the fact that for the first four years of unused vacation check did not found any papers, since their shelf life has expired and the documents were destroyed.

so after these disappointing findings once native Department and the citizen went to court, asking them to recover from former employer 808 587 roubles. In the district court, the plaintiff refused, citing documents of an official investigation.

And the court of first instance recalled that it is forbidden to leave the staff of the penal system without a vacation two years in a row.

the Plaintiff such refusal is appealed to the Supreme court of Adygea. There it claim. But partially. The judges decided to recover compensation for holidays for five years of $ 288 461 rubles. Local Supreme court said specifically that the employer must prove that the leave was provided. A judicial office could not provide the court with any vacation schedule or the reports that the chief accountant left for vacation.

In the Supreme court now went disgruntled losing party – the local unit of the Federal penitentiary service. That’s the main thing that explained the Judicial Board on civil cases of the Supreme court.

the First – employees of internal Affairs bodies cannot be replaced with holiday compensation. Exception – when it comes to dismissal. The second release should provide in a calendar year in accordance with the plan. The exclusion of those who according to the law you can join the vacation in two years. Responsible for this process and monitors its personnel��traveler service. A situation when the leave can be transferred or extended, will be shown separately. For example, temporary inability to work or performing duties at work. In cases of extreme service to the annual leave can be transferred to another date, but only by order signed by the chief.

And in exceptional cases and with the consent of the employee, leave may be carried over to the next year.

about “circumstantial evidence” of leave, the Supreme court gave the following explanation. To determine whether the employee has vacation, you need supporting documents. Namely: information about the availability of the report with the resolution of the head of the relevant years, the annual plans for the holidays, the journal of accounting, data on compensation for a Spa treatment.

As for our case, the Judicial Board on civil cases, stated the following: the decision to pay compensation for unused leave received the acting accountant. She said in the report that the vacation days the employee is not celebrated. But no other data, including on the number of accumulated days, it was not. Judicial Board on civil cases of the Supreme court stressed that the results of the official investigation of the former accountant no one appealed.

Another important point about the documents that have been destroyed due to the expiry of the retention period. The Supreme court said that the mere fact of lack of information on leave is not saying that they were not.

there were claims the Supreme court and to the decisions of the appeals in this dispute. The appeal did not mention the reasons for which some evidence was accepted and the other rejected, and explained why. The court recalled the important thing is to get paid for unused paid annual leave compensation only in case of dismissal. During the period of employment, to take money instead of leave it is impossible.

it is Important to understand that from the point of view of the law not the employee takes vacation, and he provides his employer.

the Supreme court ordered to reconsider the dispute with a former chief accountant again.