Unions promised in a conversation with nra.lv to protect trolleybus driver Larisa, whose vehicle was involved in a traffic accident last summer — on the Vanšu Bridge, she collided with a stationary service vehicle of the emergency service, belonging to the same municipal company SIA "Rīgas satiksme."
The trolleybus was damaged, but Larisa and the passengers were unharmed. After some time, the Loss Assessment and Material Responsibility Commission of "Rīgas satiksme" decided to charge Larisa 11,383.52 euros for the repair of the trolleybus. (Read more here>>)
As previously reported by the program Bez tabu (TV3), "Rīgas satiksme" did not insure its public transport under CASCO.
The question arises: will the unions of the enterprise and the industry, as well as their parent organizations, protect the driver? The assigned compensation amount is clearly disproportionate and absurd.
Responsibility only in cases of malice or gross negligence
The Deputy Chairperson of the Latvian Free Trade Union Confederation (LBAS), Gita Oškāja, explained: "We have not yet received her case, but one thing is clear — to protect themselves from such situations, workers should join a union — this is the first point of contact if the employer makes claims or demands explanations.
According to part 4 of Article 86 of the Labor Law, an employee whose work involves an increased risk of losses is only liable in cases of malice or gross negligence.
When it comes to a trolleybus driver, her work is undoubtedly associated with increased risk. Only specific circumstances allow us to determine whether there was malice or gross negligence. If so, she is liable; if not, there should be no responsibility.
The employer can file a lawsuit. If the employee agrees to compensate for the losses, they can arrange for monthly deductions from their salary or partial compensation. The situation is complex, and without specific details, it is difficult to assess."
"Rīgas satiksme" conducts repairs and maintenance at the employee's expense
The Chairperson of the Latvian Trade Union of Public Services and Transport Workers (LAKRS), Inga Veinīya, told nra.lv that she will soon review the case materials, meet with Larisa, and coordinate further actions.
She also refers to Article 86 of the Labor Law and emphasizes: the concept of "gross negligence" can be applied to almost any traffic accident or violation of traffic rules. "How can this even be contested?" she questions nra.lv.
"Nowhere is it confirmed that she acted with malice or gross negligence — she was not under the influence of alcohol, was not using her phone, and did not fall asleep. This is evident from the video recordings. She admits her fault in the accident, but the amount of more than 11,000 euros is clearly inadequate," Veinīya believes.
According to her, there are cases when, after an accident, the company orders a complete maintenance of the vehicle, including everything possible.
"If the employer saves money and does not insure the trolleybus under CASCO — this is unfair. Then they should jointly bear responsibility for the repairs. Why should only the employee pay? This is a high-risk vehicle — and without insurance?"
She is also surprised that the accident occurred on July 2, and already on July 5, a reprimand was issued. "Shouldn't there be a period for appeal?"
In Veinīya's opinion, the company "Rīgas satiksme" is overstepping its authority by making decisions as if it were a court.
The amount of the claim is disproportionate and unjustified
The Chairperson of the LOMTAA Drivers' Union, Ervīns Kubliņš, reported that after the accident, the union provided Larisa with consultations from a legal counsel and necessary legal assistance.
"Currently, the employer is considering the issue of claiming damages from Larisa. The LOMTAA union will continue to support its member in any potential legal proceedings," he stated.
When asked by nra.lv how common such cases are, he replied that with high traffic intensity in Riga, the number of accidents involving public transport is low, and even less frequently do drivers have to compensate for damages. According to the union's estimates, there are about 20–30 such cases per year.
"Claiming such a large amount is an exception. Usually, the amounts claimed are significantly smaller," Kubliņš noted. According to him, "the attempt to claim such an amount is disproportionate and unjustified and will lead to extremely severe financial consequences for the employee. The LOMTAA union categorically disagrees with this."
The employee has the right to appeal to the State Labor Inspectorate
The Riga Regional Office of the State Labor Inspectorate informed nra.lv that it does not investigate this case but clarified: the employer has the right to withhold compensation for damages from the salary if they arose as a result of unlawful and culpable actions of the employee.
However, as emphasized by the head of the inspectorate, Baiba Šilberga, written consent from the employee is required for such withholdings.
If the employee disagrees with the grounds or the amount of claims, the employer can file a lawsuit within two years from the moment the damages were incurred.
If the employer withholds funds without written consent or exceeds the permissible amount of withholdings, the employee has the right to file a complaint with the State Labor Inspectorate.
Leave a comment