Suter, in turn, wants to take this ruling to the Federal Court with the support of his union Syndicom. In its ruling published on Wednesday, the Higher Court of the Canton of Zurich concluded that Suter had not succeeded in proving that he had been dismissed because of his role as a staff representative. The dismissal for economic reasons was credible and a justifiable cause for the dismissal of an employee representative. The Code of Obligations states that this "reasonable cause" is required for the termination of an elected employee representative. The Supreme Court does not consider Suter's statements that there were other ways to save money than his dismissal as evidence that he was in fact dismissed because of his activities as an employee representative.
Should the protection of employee representatives be insufficient if they can be dismissed for economic reasons, the protection must be regulated differently by law, according to the Supreme Court. It points out that the Federal Council has indeed identified a need for action on this point. Daniel Suter, on the other hand, emphasizes that he is personally disappointed by this Supreme Court decision. Should it be supported by the Federal Supreme Court, a change in the law would have to be pushed through at the political level. Otherwise, employee representatives would be completely unprotected, said Suter.
In the first instance, however, the labor court had found in 2010 that if an employee representative could also be dismissed for economic reasons, the protection against dismissal made no sense at all. This was also not the intention of the legislator. It also declared the dismissal to be blatantly abusive because it took place at a time when Suter was negotiating with Tamedia about the social plan for the employees threatened with dismissal. Tamedia appealed this ruling to the Supreme Court. (SDA)