About the presence or absence of such a desire, and so we talk quite often, so this time we assume that it is a worker still missing. Each candidate for the reduction, you must first decide: but whether it is any at all? For example, the law prohibits dismissal of pregnant women at all – only in cases of liquidation of the organization as such. This seems to know everything, but that's about the prohibition of dismissal on redundancy of women with children under three years (and single mothers – 14 years) as something less. If a child without a mother brings up another person (eg father), then one hundred percent of its abandonment in the workplace in general hardly anyone remembers. By the way, once we have touched upon the liquidation of the organization, the employers of this moment, to put it mildly abused.
Say, closing a store or manufacturing – it is not necessarily eliminated. Change of ownership, which is often the administration concealed – also not a reason for the dismissal of any employees except general director and chief accountant. Liquidation of the organization – is the elimination of the legal person, and this procedure – is complex and expensive, besides very clear: this process is quite feasible to track – for example, by contacting mifns St. Petersburg 15 for the discharge of the organization. If staff reductions or the number of employees is indeed the case, then the employee on next stage of meditation is to see – if he had any pre-emptive rights on the abandonment of the work. According to paragraph 1 of Article 179 of the Customs Code, reducing the number of workers or staff is a priority granted to employees with higher productivity and skills.
If a qualification bit easier – here is the importance of education, availability of documents on retraining, work experience in particular position, then calculate the performance is not always easy. Especially for office workers. We must evaluate, and other circumstances that give an advantage in reducing the state, established by Part 2 of Article 179 tc RF: the presence of two or more dependents, the absence of a breadwinner in the family, etc. In any case, the decision about whom to fire and who is not cut – the employer shall, at its discretion. But this decision has not yet final – if there are doubts about its legitimacy, then it may well be challenged in court. The main thing – to see the situation realistically and not stupid crap – firing the employee "on article" perhaps after a warning about the decline.