Facts
The appellant, an employee, was terminated by his employer, the respondent, after presenting shortcomings and character flaws that hindered teamwork. The appellant contested this termination before the cantonal courts, arguing that the termination was abusive under Article 336 of the Code of Obligations (CO). The cantonal judges rejected his claim, considering that the termination was not abusive.
The appellant then filed an appeal with the Federal Court, arguing that the cantonal judges had misapplied Article 336 CO and had not properly taken into account Article 328 CO. The Federal Court examined the facts of the case and found that the appellant had indeed presented shortcomings and character flaws that hindered teamwork.
The parties involved are the appellant, an employee, and the respondent, his employer. The dispute concerns the termination of the employment contract and the question of whether it is abusive under Article 336 CO. The key dates in the case are as follows: the appellant was terminated on [date], he contested this termination before the cantonal courts on [date], and filed an appeal with the Federal Court on [date].
Considerations
The Federal Court recalled the principles applicable to abusive termination of an employment contract. According to Article 336 para. 1 and 2 CO, termination is abusive in certain cases, particularly when the termination is given for a reason inherent to the other party's personality, unless this reason has a connection to the employment relationship or causes significant harm to the work in the company.
The Federal Court examined the facts of the case and found that the appellant had presented shortcomings and character flaws that hindered teamwork. It considered that these character traits did not constitute a reason inherent to the personality within the meaning of Article 336 para. 1 let. a CO, but rather shortcomings that hindered teamwork.
The Federal Court also examined the question of whether the…