Surprise! Here is what happened to the restaurant from the crown party with Milko Kalaydzhiev

The Plovdiv restaurant “Ribarnika” was fined 10 bonas after the illegal party in the middle of January this year, reports “Maritsa“.

We remind you that 50 people were found in the restaurant to have fun. Among the guests was Milko Kalaydzhiev, and the occasion was not born to the owner.

After a signal for violation of the anti-epidemic measures, police and RHI inspectors arrived on the spot.
Here is the chronology of events set out in the judgment.

On 15.01.2021 at around 19:30 an inspection was carried out by the bodies of the OD of the Ministry of Interior in Plovdiv on the occasion of media publications that activities are being carried out at the site, despite the declared state of emergency and an order of the Minister of Health. cease.

Various persons were identified at the scene of the inspection. Some of them celebrated the birthdays of the owners of the restaurant, and the others were gathered by the salon manager of the bistro, which on September 23, 2020 had suffered a severe accident and wanted to take care of its health. On this occasion, she invited some of the staff and asked the owners to occupy one of the halls for this purpose.

Shortly after the celebration began, law enforcement officers and employees of RHI Plovdiv went to the scene.

On the occasion of the inspection, the Labor Inspection Directorate – Plovdiv was alerted. Therefore, the inspector general was instructed to check whether there was a breach of labor law. The inspection on her part was carried out only on the basis of documents requested by the company. The results were that most of the employees of the bistro as of 15.01.2021 use unpaid leave, namely from 22.12.2020 to 29.01.2021.

Therefore, it was requested from the OD of the Ministry of Interior in Plovdiv to present data on which persons were present in the bistro during the action of the security body. On this occasion, a letter was received from those present, who were waiters, cooks and manager, ie only staff.

After checking the concluded contracts, the employees of the inspection found that two were not employees of the restaurant and did not have an employment contract with him.

On the basis of the required documents, the employees of the Labor Inspectorate identified the persons who were in the “Fishpond” and at the same time were on unpaid leave. The documents were sent to the General Labor Inspectorate, where an opinion was received that there was a violation under Art. 120c of the Labor Code – for the fact that the company allowed on the date and time in question to their jobs manager, waiter and cook, in an emergency situation, as the same workers use unpaid annual leave, are not included in the work schedule and are admitted to their jobs.

The act was worth 10 vouchers and was drawn up in the presence of a witness and a representative of the restaurant.
“Ribarnika” appealed the sanction in court, as a result of which the magistrates revoked it.

Here are the reasons:

“The act has not been drawn up in full compliance with the provision of Article 42 of ZANN, as the violation has not been exhaustively described and the circumstances under which it was committed have not been specified. The act has been drawn up by a competent person in compliance with the procedure for drawing it up. Articles 40 and 43 of ZANN in the presence of a witness and a representative of the offender, and he was given the opportunity to file objections against him, and a written objection was filed against him.

The decree is issued by a competent body within the scope of its competence, in the form prescribed by law and is consistent with the purpose of the law. The terms under Art. 34 of ZANN. Its content does not contain the obligatory requisites and no defects are found, leading to violation of the right to protection of the punished legal entity.

The violation is not properly described in the NP from a factual point of view, as the administrative sanctioning body has clearly and in detail indicated in the circumstantial part its individualizing features time, place and authorship, but not all and circumstances under which it was committed. Therefore, it can be assumed that the offender’s right to protection has been affected and the offender has not had the full opportunity to understand exactly what his responsibility is engaged in – for non-compliance with the rules for admitting workers to the workplace in an emergency situation. ”

The magistrates also believe that the presence of the workers in the establishment was not on the occasion of performing their work duties, but the celebration of a holiday.

“This is the difference with the admission to their jobs, where in essence they would do work or would have the opportunity to do so.

In the present case, it was established to the contrary that they were present there, but not on the occasion of the employment. No circumstances have been established, nor has evidence been committed by the respondent to rebut these findings and to establish that the same persons actually performed their duties and were at their jobs.

That is why the court held that it was not objectively proven that the said persons had been at their workplaces, and hence the obligation of the employer not to allow them to their workplaces had not been violated.

In view of what has been adopted, the court does not consider that it should rule on the subjective side of the dispute, which is in any case objective and innocent, as well as on the fairness of the punishment, “the reasons for the court’s decision reads.
It is subject to appeal before the Administrative Court in Plovdiv.

.

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.