No vested-benefit entitlement absent economic dismissal

ATA/729/1996Court of Justice / Administrative ChamberDec 10, 1996Dismissed

Extracted by Omnilex

Omnilex summary

The claimant sought occupational pension vested-benefit protection on the ground that she had been economically dismissed. The court held that this was not proven: the employer had refilled the position and there was no general reduction of personnel at the same time. The claim was therefore dismissed.

Omnilex headnote

Art. 28 LPP; vested-benefit entitlement after termination requires an economic dismissal to be established. Where the employer proves that the dismissed employee’s position was refilled and that no general workforce reduction occurred at the relevant time, the prerequisite of economic redundancy is lacking; the claim to vested benefits must be rejected.

Full text

Descripteurs

PREVOYANCE PROFESSIONNELLE; ASSURANCE SOCIALE; PRESTATION DE LIBRE PASSAGE; LIBRE PASSAGE(ASSURANCES); LICENCIEMENT ECONOMIQUE; ASSU

Normes

LPP.28

Résumé

Il n'y a pas eu licenciement éonomique de la demanderesse car l'employeur a pu établir qu'il avait repourvu son poste et qu'il n'y avait pas eu de réduction générale de personnel à la même époque.

Keywords

occupational pensionvested benefitseconomic dismissalredundancyworkforce reduction

Extracted by Omnilex

Key legal questions extracted by Omnilex

Key legal question

Whether the claimant was dismissed for economic reasons so as to trigger vested-benefit rights under occupational pension law.

Extracted holding

No. The court found that the employer had proved the position was refilled and that there was no general staff reduction at the relevant time.

Extracted reasoning

The objective circumstances rebutted the allegation of an economic dismissal; the employment termination was therefore not treated as an economic redundancy.

No vested-benefit entitlement absent economic dismissalAI generated