Tiriamajame darbe autorius siekia atskleisti teorinius bendro pobūdžio klausimus: apibrėžti darbo sutarties pasibaigimo ir nutraukimo sąvokas. Autoriaus nagrinėjami darbo sutarties nutraukimo darbdavio iniciatyva, kai nėra darbuotojo kaltės, pagrindai. Analizuojamas įspėjimas apie darbo sutarties nutraukimą. Lyginamuoju metodu pateikiamas tarptautinių dokumentų ir ES teisės normų, reguliuojančių darbo sutarties nutraukimą, reglamentavimas. Tiriamajame darbe pateikiamas garantijų ir apribojimų reglamentavimas, atsirandantis nutraukiant darbo sutartį darbdavio iniciatyvą, kai nėra darbuotojo kaltės. Pateikiamas teisminės praktikos apibendrinimas, reikšmingas teisingai aiškinant ir tinkamai taikant teisės normas, reglamentuojančias darbo sutarties nutraukimą darbdavio iniciatyva, kai nėra darbuotojo kaltės. / In this research work an author seeks to educe the theoretical character of questions: to define the conceptions of the expiry or the termination of an employment contract. Author analyses the grounds for the termination of an employment contract on the initiative of an employer without any fault on the part of an employee. Author analyses the notice of the termination of an employment contract. The regulation of the legal rules of international documents and EU presents by the comparable method. The regulation of the guarantees and limitations represents in this research work, which give effect to the termination of an employment contract on the initiative of an employer without any fault on the part of an employee. Author educes the generalization of judiciary practice, which is essential justly to interpret and properly to use rules of the termination of an employment contract on the initiative of an employer without any fault on the part of an employee.

Šio darbo pirmoje dalyje yra nagrinėjama Europos Bendrijų teisės aktuose nustatytos garantijos darbuotojams, taikomos įmonės reorganizavimo atveju. Tyrimo metu analizuojama Direktyva Nr. 2001/23/EB, remiantis Europos Teisingumo Teismo praktiką, aiškinamos direktyvos nuostatos įtvirtinančios individualią bei kolektyvinę darbuotojų interesų apsaugą. Antrojoje dalyje analizuojama reorganizavimo samprata civilinėje bei darbo teisėje, atskleidžiama reorganizavimo sąvoka, būdai, etapai. Pateikiamas reorganizavimo palyginimas su likvidavimo procedūra bei restruktūrizavimu. Taip pat analizuojamos Lietuvos Respublikos darbo kodekso normos, nustatančios apribojimus darbdaviui nutraukti darbo sutartį reorganizuojant įmonę. Tyrimo metu paaiškėja, kad nacionalinės teisės aktai nevisiškai atitinka Direktyvos Nr. 2001/23/EB tikslus. Nors reorganizavimas pats savaime nėra teisėta priežastis darbo santykių nutraukimui, tačiau darbuotojų apsauga nėra absoliuti. Reorganizavimo metu ir jam pasibaigus įmonėje susiklosto sudėtingi darbo santykiai, darbo santykių tęstinumas ne visada yra užtikrinamas. Todėl trečioje darbo dalyje yra kalbama apie darbdavio teisės nutraukti darbo sutartį įgyvendinimą bei jos apribojimus, aptariama darbuotojų perkėlimo galimybė, informavimo ir konsultavimo pareigos realizavimas. Darbo pabaigoje yra suformuluotos išvados remiantis atliktu teisės aktų bei Europos Teisingumo Teismo bei Lietuvos Aukščiausiojo Teismo praktikos tyrimu bei teisės doktrinos analize. / In the first part the main issue is analyzes of European Communities law and the Directive No 2001/23/EC witch laid down legal guarantees for the employees during the process of enterprises reorganization. The main provisions of the directive that include protection of individual and collective employee’s interests were explained according to The European Court of Justice practice. In the second part of the work was done analyzes of the concept of reorganization in civil and labor law, in purpose to find out definition of reorganization, means and stages of process. There are given a comparison of reorganization and liquidation, reorganization and restructuring. This part of work also includes analyzes of Labour Code norms, which laid down restrictions on employer who is unallowable to terminate the employment contract during reorganization of the enterprises. The study reveals that national legislation does not fully comply with purposes of Directive No 2001/23/EC. Although, reorganization in itself is not a legitimate reason for termination of employment, but employment protection is not absolute too. During the reorganization and after this process, labour relations between employer and employees may be complicated and employment succession is not always guaranteed. Therefore, there is talking about the employer's right to terminate the labour contract, the implementation and restricts of this right. Last part also includes discussion about possibility to transfer... [to full text]

Longtemps délaissé, l’accord est aujourd’hui au coeur du processus de rupture du contrat de travail. A la suspicion qui entourait l’expression commune des volontés est substituée la confiance. La légalisation de la rupture d’un commun accord du contrat de travail par la loi du25 juin 2008 sous le nom de rupture conventionnelle en témoigne. Cette réforme a bouleversé le droit de la rupture du contrat de travail. Même s’il est acquis depuis longtemps que les parties peuvent mettre un terme d’un commun accord au contrat qui les unit sur le fondement de l’article 1134 du Code civil, cette modalité de rupture n’a longtemps été utilisée que de manière très ponctuelle. L’absence d’encadrement de cette technique et les restrictions apportées à son champ d’application l’expliquent en partie. La reconnaissance du commun accord comme mode de rupture spécifique du contrat de travail, auquel est attaché un régime précis et autonome, pourrait signifier la fin de l’utilisation de la rupture d’un commun accord de droit commun, considérée comme peu adaptée aux relations de travail. Un tel régime pourrait également mettre un terme au monopole détenu par les ruptures unilatérales, en particulier le licenciement. Une large prise en compte du dispositif de rupture conventionnelle est de nature à contribuer à l’apaisement et à l’équilibre des relations de travail. / Initially relinquished, mutual agreement is now at the heart of the process of terminating the employment contract. There has been an evolution tending to the shift from suspicion towards mutual agreement as a termination device to the trust in such means. This acquired trust is best illustrated by the recognition of employment termination via mutual agreement by the Act dated June, 25th 2008. The reform introduced by this Act transformed the legal regime applicable to the termination of employment contracts. Despite the fact that Article 1134 of the French Civil Code has long granted parties the possibility to terminate the contract binding them by mutually agreeing to do so, such mode of termination has only been resorted to on a fairly limited basis. This phenomenon can notably be explained by both the lack of clear legal framework applicable to this device, and the restrictions imposed on its ambit. The recognition of termination of the employment contract via mutual agreement as a device specifically applied in the field of labor law, as well as the definition of a specific and independent regime would be likely to give rise to ending the resort to Article 1134, whose scope is only general and not specifically tailored to labor relations. The implementation of this specific regime could put an end to the monopoly held by unilateral terminations of the employment contract, particularly the method of dismissal. A broad consideration of termination of the employment contract via mutual agreement can also contribute to the appeasement and balance in labor relations.

By means of comparative analysis the features of regulation of probationary period in a contract of employment in the law of Lithuania and the members of the EU are revealed. The problem of evaluation of the results of probationary period as well as the right to dispute the dismissal due to the negative outcome of probationary period are considered. The author also discusses some law cases of the Supreme Court of Lithuania to reveal the problems, related to probation clause.