Mr. Verzetnisch and the dilemma of answering a difficult question

The 2nd part of the homework was to think of the question, if it is ethical for President Verzetnitsch to claim termination gratuity?

To understand this question or part of the homework, here a short overview of the facts:
Mr. Verzetnisch himself was nearly 20 years the president of the labour union of Austria. In the year 2006 a scandal popped up, that in the year 2000 the BAWAG bank had very big financial problems and for this reason certain fonds were mortgaged by Mr. Verzetnisch in the name of the ÖGB (the austrian labour union), which he did together with Günther Weninger the chairman of the board of representatives. Because this mortgage was discreeted, the resulting commitment never took place. At the moment the shares of the mortgage were planned to get rebuyed, the BAWAG again came into big financial problems, because the value of these shares were far to high, because the missed commitment in the past.

After this information, finally Mr. Verzetnisch abdicated on the 27th of March and on the 30th of April he was stacked by his follower Mr. Hundstorfer.

The discussion now is:
Mr. Verzetnisch requests a termination gratuity 865.000 Euros of the ÖGB, with the main jurisdictual argument, that the instant dismissal came too late by Mr. Hundstorfer, so that the request of the termination gratuity is lawful.

Among these facts, there should also be 2 facts taken into account before telling my personal opinion:

• With, or without the termination gratuity of the ÖGB, Mr. Verzetnisch gets the "Abgeordneten-Pension" of about 4000 Euro
• Because of the instant dismissal. Mr. Verzetnisch does not get the compensation by the ÖGB
• Mr. Verzetnisch will not get the pension of 3500 Euro
  

The jurisdictional question is:
At an instant dismissal of an employee, there must be a very important reason AND this reason must be told to the employee immediately. Which did not take place!

My personal opinion:

Here it must be differentiated between the facts accoring to the law, and the personal opinion. There are certain rules and laws in the austrian law, that every judge has to follow. After this law Ex-President V. will probably win this court procedure, simply due to the fact that Mr. Hundstorfer really told this reason for the instant dismissal too late. Mr. Hundstorfer According to this fact, the judge has to follow the law. Mr. Hundstorfer stated a few arguments, why this had happened (e.g. less sleep at these days, stress by the media..etc), but still there is one fact: There has been an instant dismissal taken place. Every employer must know the rules how to stack an employee BEFORE doing it, and cannot wonder, if something has been forgotten, that the employee uses his right in front of the court.


This is the jursdictional fact, according to the law, which must take place. The other view is the ethical view (which is totally different from a jurisdictional point of view, or the jurisdictional facts):

The amounts we are all talking here about (an early-pension of 4000 euro in any case, a probably termination gratuity of 865.000 euros), this is the first point. An average employee earns about 2500 until 3000 euros, and probably many of the employees also have children, and both parents have to work. As the president of the Labour Union, which is the Union for employees, which has (or should have) the goal to watch and save the rights of employees and to guarantee a fair proportion between employee and employer, it is funny to see that this president fights for an incredible high amount of termination graduity, where most of the parents (which are 2 people) does not earn such a high amount for a whole family. For me this is an intersting question, but also a funny fact!?

I am not a specialst in law, but I do not understand, why Mr. V. tries to get 865.000 euros, if the actual amoung of gratuity is lawer..? But in any case I wonder, what Mr. V. thinks or beleives in, to follow a job as the leader of labour union, and then, after a scandal (where he was mostly involved), fights for such an amount (also: the labour union is an association which earns money by the members of the association).

Still, for me the fact of being a president of a labour union and fighting this fight now is the most interesting fact in this discussion, which I cannot answer so far. Such a man, which he surely is, must be very ambitous in his plans, this is for sure -- but ambitous does not always have positive sides, and can end-up in very egoistic and single-way strategies.