Termination of a stand-in employment contract when the reason for the substitution is defined in generic terms

[Commentary on the SCR, Employment Division, of 10th May 2011, rec. no. 2588/2010]

Abstract

The Supreme Court has consistently held that, when the specific grounds for substitution that the parties have stated in a contract have disappeared, this justifies the termination of the contract, even in cases where the employee who is replaced maintains the right to return to their post. In the decision with which we are concerned here, the Employment Division of the Supreme Court had the opportunity to construe the terms of a stand-in contract in which the parties had used an ambiguous formula to define the grounds for substitution. All it stated was that the purpose of the contract was to «replace employees with the right to reserved employment posts», without going into any more detail. The Court's Ruling of 10th May 2011 stresses the negotiating role of the parties, enabling them to identify the grounds for substitution with greater or lesser precision and thus agree on the grounds for termination.