He was fired in France, and years later won 242,000 euros in compensation.

After Thomas, who served as commercial director at an automobile dealership in France, was dismissed, the lawsuit he filed exposed the company's critical mistake. Thomas, who had worked at the same company since 1998, was terminated in 2020 on grounds of gross negligence. However, the failure to prove that the signature on the termination letter was made by an authorized person changed the course of the lawsuit.

Fired After 22 Years

Thomas served at the same company for about 22 years. In 2020, a disciplinary process was initiated against him on the grounds that he failed to perform his duties properly, causing disruptions in customer relations and order management.

Thomas, removed from his post on 24 June, after the meeting on 13 July, on 22 Julygross negligencewas dismissed on the grounds of.

The Signature in the Termination Letter Changed the Fate of the Case

Thomas, after being dismissed, resorted to legal channels. In the later stages of the case, a minor detail in the termination letter gained critical importance.

The phrase "pour ordre" was found next to the signature in the letter.The expression was present. However, it was established that the person who signed was not directly the human resources authority of the company that employed Thomas.The signatory was the human resources manager of another company that handled payroll processing for the corporate group.

The employer failed to prove to the court that the person in question had the authority to terminate Thomas’s employment contract on behalf of the company.

The Court Did Not Focus on the Reason for Termination

Thomas first filed a claim with the labor court, but in October 2021 he did not obtain the desired outcome. He then appealed the decision to the appellate court.

The appellate court ruled that the authority and management link between the person who carried out the dismissal and Thomas’s employer had not been sufficiently established. Thus, before the grounds for termination, it was decisive whether the dismissal was carried out in accordance with procedure.

The Company Will Pay €242,595

The court ruled in favor of Thomas on various compensation and claim items. Accordingly, the employee was awarded €130,000 in material damages, €60,600 in termination compensation, and €27,270 for notice period.

In addition, it was decided that the employee’s salary and leave entitlements for the period of €10,000 during which he was removed from duty due to working conditions would also be paid.

Total payment reached 242,595 euros.

The point that stood out in the lawsuit was not so much whether Thomas's dismissal was justified, but that the company could not prove that the person who signed the termination decision was authorized to carry out the action.