Analysis of Judgment No. 8745 of 2024: Disciplinary Sanctions in Public Employment
The recent judgment No. 8745 of April 3, 2024, by the Court of Cassation has raised important issues regarding disciplinary power in contracted public employment. In particular, the Court ruled on the application of disciplinary sanctions, distinguishing between conservative sanctions and expulsion sanctions, and clarifying the boundaries of the prohibition of substantial double jeopardy (ne bis in idem). But what does all this mean for public employees and employers?
Context of the Judgment
The case examined by the Court concerned a part-time employee of a municipality, head of the building amnesty office, who had violated conflict of interest regulations. The employee was initially sanctioned with a conservative penalty, but was subsequently dismissed with an expulsion penalty for alleged facts of a similar nature, but distinct. The Court confirmed the lawfulness of the dismissal, establishing that there was no violation of the ne bis in idem principle.
The Principle of Ne Bis in Idem
Contracted public employment - Exercise of disciplinary power with conservative sanction - Subsequent application of expulsion sanction - Same nature of charges - Diversity of contested facts - Violation of substantial "ne bis in idem" - Non-existence - Case law.
The principle of ne bis in idem prohibits punishing a person multiple times for the same conduct. However, in the case at hand, the contested facts were different, even if they concerned similar conduct. The Court therefore reiterated that it is possible to apply an expulsion sanction after a conservative one, provided that the facts are autonomous and distinct.
Implications of the Judgment for Public Employment
- Clarity in disciplinary proceedings: the judgment provides guidance on how to manage disciplinary proceedings, highlighting the importance of separating contested facts.
- Protection of workers' rights: while maintaining disciplinary power, the judgment safeguards workers' rights, avoiding excessive sanctions for conduct not directly related.
- Jurisprudential precedents: the Court referred to precedents that confirm the lawfulness of similar decisions, creating a more defined legal framework.
Judgment No. 8745 of 2024 therefore represents an important reference point for the application of sanctions in public employment, clarifying how and when disciplinary power can be exercised without violating workers' rights.
Conclusions
In conclusion, the judgment of the Court of Cassation offers a clear interpretation of disciplinary dynamics in public employment, highlighting the importance of a legal approach that respects workers' rights. The distinction between conservative and expulsion sanctions, combined with the need to verify the autonomy of the contested facts, represents a fundamental element for ensuring fairness and justice in disciplinary proceedings. It is essential that employers and employees understand these dynamics to avoid future conflicts and misunderstandings.
