ODPOVED POGODBE O ZAPOSLITVI - Zorko, Martina (M. Zorko, 2011)
Pravni red Republike Slovenije je v zadnjih desetletjih z vidika posegov v organizacijo države in pravne ureditve prestal neverjetne spremembe. To je posledica velikih sprememb temeljev političnih in gospodarskih razmerij ter produkcijskih odnosov. Te spremembe so pomembno vplivale na pravni status organizacij, na katerih se je oziroma se opravlja delo, ter posledično na delovna razmerja. Eno od ključnih področij, ki povezujejo tematiko pravnega statusa in tematiko delovnih razmerij, je področje sistema upravljanja, nadzora in vodenja organizacije, v kateri se opravlja delo. Te velike spremembe se kažejo v predpisih, ki urejajo tematiko organov organizacije, skratka njihov pravni položaj v širšem pomenu besede. Ob vprašanju, ali gre pri vodenju, ki je posebna vrsta človekovih dejavnosti, s pravnega vidika za opravljanje dela ali funkcije, ali morda za obe pravni kategoriji, je treba pred presojo tega vprašanja proučiti tudi druge strokovne vidike omenjene človekove dejavnosti. Te dejavnosti so v prvi vrsti odvisne od narave, poslanstva in posebnih značilnosti sodobnih organizacij, v katerih se izvaja vodenje. Sodobna družba je ustanovljena in deluje zaradi zadovoljevanja potreb nosilcev različnih interesov udeležencev v tej družbi. S tega vidika so poslovni uspeh oziroma cilji družbe najpomembnejši rezultat delovanja tovrstne organizacije. Po določilih 4. člena Zakona o delovnih razmerjih (v nadaljevanju ZDR) je navedena zahteva, da delavci opravljajo delo po navodilih in nadzoru delodajalca. Pravilo, ki omenja to zahtevo, je temelj delodajalčeve direktive in disciplinske oblasti nad delavci, ki ju lahko uresničuje sam neposredno ali preko poslovodnih organov. Vsebina te oblasti je, da poslovodni organ delavcem odreja delo v okvirih, ki so določeni z zakonom, z viri avtonomnega prava ter s pogodbo o zaposlitvi. Pri tem je upravičen delavcu izdajati navodila, kaj in kako je potrebno opraviti delo, delavec pa je dolžan to upoštevati. Izvajanje odredb in navodil nadzira poslovodni organ, ki zaradi obrambe interesov delodajalca proti delavcu lahko represivno ukrepa. Čeprav pravice poslovodnega organa pri odločanju o zaposlovanju, pravicah, obveznosti in odgovornosti zaposlenih načeloma ne moremo označiti kot pristojnost le-tega, zakon namreč določa nekatere omejitve, ki jih mora delodajalec oziroma poslovodni organ pri odločanju o pravnem položaju delavca upoštevati. Gre za z zakonom določene obveznosti, ki so meje in okvir delodajalčeve oblasti. Med take obveznosti spada tudi dolžnost delodajalca oziroma poslovodnega organa, da spoštuje pravne norme, ki urejajo delovno pravo. S pričetkom veljavnosti ZDR iz leta 2003, se je spremenil postopek prenehanja delovnega razmerja, kakor tudi vloga delodajalca oziroma poslovodnega organa, in sicer veljavna delovno-pravna ureditev določa norme za odpoved pogodbe o zaposlitvi s strani delavca kot tudi odpoved s strani delodajalca. Med razvojem delovnega prava se je spreminjala tudi vloga delodajalca v primeru prenehanja delovnega razmerja. Do leta 2003 delodajalec ni imel neposrednega vpliva na prenehanje delovnega razmerja v primeru kršitev obveznosti iz delovnega razmerja, saj je o ukrepu odločala disciplinska oziroma drugostopenjska t.i. pritožbena komisija. V primeru, če se delavec ni strinjal z izrekom disciplinske komisije, je lahko uveljavljal varstvo svojih pravic v sami organizaciji, t.j. pred pritožbeno komisijo. Šele po obravnavi primera pred pritožbeno komisijo je lahko delavec na podlagi Zakona o temeljnih pravicah iz delovnega razmerja (v nadaljevanju ZTPDR) vložil tožbo na pristojno sodišče. Če primerjamo institut disciplinskega postopka, lahko ugotovimo, da se je bistveno spremenil, in sicer veljaven zakon ne pozna več razloga prenehanja delovnega razmerja na podlagi disciplinskega ukrepa v primeru hujših kršitev delovnih obveznosti. Glede na sedaj veljaven pogodbeni odnos, lahko v primeru, če katera stranka krši pogodbene ali druge obveznosti iz delovnega razmerja, nasprotna stranka odpo In recent decades the legal order of the Republic of Slovenia has endured incredible changes in the aspect of intervention into organization of the state and legal order. This is due to the changes in the foundations of political and economic relations and production relations. These changes have a significant impact on the legal status of organisations and consequently to the employment relations. One of the key areas that link the topic of legal status and the issue of labour relations is the scope of control and management of organisations in which work is carried out. These major changes are reflected in the regulations governing organisation management, in short their legal status in the broader sense. Before answering the question whether the conduct, which is a special type of human activity, from the legal point of view is a matter of performing work or function, or perhaps both legal categories, it is necessary to look also at other aspects of that human activity. These activities are primarily dependent on the nature, mission and specific features of modern organisations in which the conduct is performed. Modern society is established and operates to meet the needs of holders of various interests. In this regard, business success and achievement of company's goals are the most important results of the organisation operation. Under the terms of paragraph 4 of the Employment Relation Act (ZDR) it is required that the work is performed according to the instructions and control of the employer. The rule, which refers to this requirement is the cornerstone of the employer's directive and disciplinary power over employees and can be exercised directly or through a single management body. According to the content of this rule the employer has the authority of ordering the workers work within the limits laid down by law, by means of autonomous law sources and the employment contract. In doing so, the employer is entitled to issue instructions on what and how the work is to be done and the worker is obliged to take this into account. Implementation of instructions is overseen by a management body which in defence of the employer's interests may take repressive actions toward the employee. However, the rights of the management body to decide on employment rights, obligations and responsibilities of employees can in principle not be considered the jurisdiction thereof, as the law provides for certain restrictions imposed by the employer or the management body to decide on the legal status of the worker. Such responsibilities include the duty of the employer or management body to respect the rules of law governing the labour law. The change of the Employment Relation Act (ZDR) in 2003 has changed the process of termination of employment as well as the role of the employer or management body. The current working-regulation sets standards for the termination of the employment contract by the employee as well as by the employer. During the development of labour law the role of the employer has changed in the event of termination of employment. By 2003, the employer had no direct effect on termination of employment in the event of breach of the employment relation, as the Disciplinary Board or the appeal commission decided on disciplinary action. In the event that the worker did not agree with the imposition of the Disciplinary Board he could invoke his protection of rights in his organisation, i.e. before the appeal commission. Only after hearing the case before the appeal commission the worker could, under the Basic Rights Stemming from Employment Act (ZTPDR), bring an action before the competent court. When comparing the institute of disciplinary proceedings, we can conclude that it has significantly changed, i.e. the valid law knows no more the reason of termination of employment on the basis of disciplinary action for serious misconduct. Given the currently valid contractual relation, in the event of breach of contractual or other employment relation by either party, the other party can termina