On January 27, 2020, the Tbilisi City Court Civil Cases Panel accepted a lawsuit against the japanese retail chain "Miniso's" Georgian representation and started to examine the important case for establishing a homogenous practices in legal aspects of labour relations. The mentioned company fired a store managed based on the grounds of gender, who, for the makeup and hair straightening, was perceived as a gross violator of the labor contract and internal regulations.

According to "Young Barristers", in the present case, the fact of creating a high public interest aims to unconditionally protect and prevent the violation of the labor rights of employees, as well as, aims to prevent the possible discrimination based on the gender. Therefore, the organization proceeds based on the pro-bono principle and reviews it as a part of legal strategic litigation. It is established by the case files, that there was a permanent labor-legal relationship between the employee and the employer. On the grounds of November 22, 2019 decision (notification), the company fired the store manager. The dismission was based on the Article 37 (1 (Z)) of the Labor Code of Georgia. In this decision it is stated, that the basis for termination of an employment contract is a gross violation of the legal contract and the internal regulations, which was expressed in the employee's actions. In particular, on November 20, 2019, the manager, along with four of of her subordinate employees, at the workplace, on their working hours, was doing the makeup and hair straightening.

According to the case files, in reality, on November 20, 2019, the employee for 1 day had a Day Off, which was pre-arranged to the management of the company, as she had to attend her friend's wedding as a bridesmaid. The manager had to arrive to the Public Service Hall at 13:00 for a ceremony of signing of the register. On the one hand, since she had a non-working day, and on the other hand, her job was in a short distance from the Public Service Hall, she decided to go to the work anyway, pay attention to its environment and afterwards, move to the destination place from there. The manager hasn't been involved in performing her official duties, since arriving to the workplace. She only moved to the reserved space for the employees, for the resting purposes, and independently, without any help or participation prepared for the wedding event. This process didn't interfere the operation of the store, and the fact that the employees were relocating around the working place is a reality and a completely natural process, depending on the specifics of the store activity. Therefore, the decision of the dismissal is based on the unlawful facts and circumstances, which is an unlawful attitude towards gender-based discrimination.

According to "Young Barristers", the company had started the disciplinary proceedings against the employee without any proper reasons, since the actions didn't openly and clearly lay the groundwork for a relevant and logical decision. Even, if there was a breach of duty, the company didn't apply a severe penalty and only the dismissal has been considered as the appropriate measure. Moreover, the most importantly, the sanction, which was applied, didn't relate to the misconduct, as the actions didn't occur during the working hours of the worker, there was no adverse effects caused by it , and / or disruption to the manufacturing process. In our case, the grounds for dismissing the manager are so unfounded, that they can't withstand the criticism. It has no legitimate purpose and development. Therefore, it is essentially important to uphold the principle of the Ultima Ratio in labour law, which means that the dismissal should be used only when, based on the misconduct, imposing a lighter sanction is totally useless. Every violation, which is committed by an employee, must be analyzed in terms of its frequency, severity, and most importantly, based on the result. Based on the evidence presented to the organization, we note out that it is a fact of an unlawful release. Therefore, the impugned order fully falls within the scope of #158 ILO Convention  on the termination of labor relations and based on that, allows the court to make objective findings.

To note: the lawsuit was filed with the court on December 6, 2019, afterwards, concrete requirement were specified, and it was accepted by the court on January 27, 2020. On February 7, the company refused to recognize the manager's  lawsuit,  demanding to - annul the dismissal order, reinstatement and the reimbursement,  also, the possibility of a reconciliation with the party has been excluded by them. By the official information, Japanese retail chain "Miniso" operates in 79 country, with more than 3500 branch offices present. In Georgia, it has been operating since 2016, and currently is represented by 15 branches. The judge - Ia Labadze reviews the case. The legal interests of the manager are represented by the Head of "Young Barristers" - Archil Kaikatsihvili, and law specialists: Ana Putkaradze and Tamar Tsikhishvili.