Post by nurnob85 on Feb 12, 2024 0:02:58 GMT -8
Was ts co-worker ths beng the condton for the provson of servces. Challengng the requests, t protested that the complant was unfounded (pages 17/33) .Attached documents (pages 34/185). The second defendant ( OPERATOR ) asserts that she mantaned a drect relatonshp wth the plantff only from January 2004 onwards. n the prevous perod, servces were provded through the frst defendant, wth whom she had a cvl contract, whch rules out the possblty of recognton of the employment relatonshp. Dsputes some clams and requests the complant be dsmssed (pages 15/16). Documents on pages.
Arly dsmssed on December 31, 2003. She emphaszes that she was hred by the frst defendant (CCCOP) to work on the second's (OPERATOR). , whch s why t requres the recognton of the employment relatonshp wth the cooperatve and the decree of the subsdary responsblty of the Duba Emal Lst company recevng servces, even though t postulates the decree of the nullty of the cooperatve act, under the terms of artcle 9 of the CLT. The clam, n the terms proposed here, s expressed n the ntal statement and n the reply on pages 198/199. However, the author makes a bg mess n her entry pece. She wants recognton of the employment relatonshp wth the work cooperatve but then.
[mg]https://zh-cn.callnglst.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/mage-1.jpg[/mg]
Postulates recognton of the employment relatonshp n the perod from 01/27/2002 on 01/31/2005” (page 04). The fact that the complanant, from January 2004, became an employee of the second defendant, wth the contract regstered n CTPS, s uncontroversal. The cooperatve dsappeared from the relatonshp from ths date onwards. The complanant does not construct a logcal explanaton capable of justfyng such a contradctory poston, creatng some dffcultes n analyzng her requests, gven the contradcton between the causa petend and the postulaton. We are not dealng wth the hypothess of a sngle employment contract, a matter that could have been deduced.
Arly dsmssed on December 31, 2003. She emphaszes that she was hred by the frst defendant (CCCOP) to work on the second's (OPERATOR). , whch s why t requres the recognton of the employment relatonshp wth the cooperatve and the decree of the subsdary responsblty of the Duba Emal Lst company recevng servces, even though t postulates the decree of the nullty of the cooperatve act, under the terms of artcle 9 of the CLT. The clam, n the terms proposed here, s expressed n the ntal statement and n the reply on pages 198/199. However, the author makes a bg mess n her entry pece. She wants recognton of the employment relatonshp wth the work cooperatve but then.
[mg]https://zh-cn.callnglst.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/mage-1.jpg[/mg]
Postulates recognton of the employment relatonshp n the perod from 01/27/2002 on 01/31/2005” (page 04). The fact that the complanant, from January 2004, became an employee of the second defendant, wth the contract regstered n CTPS, s uncontroversal. The cooperatve dsappeared from the relatonshp from ths date onwards. The complanant does not construct a logcal explanaton capable of justfyng such a contradctory poston, creatng some dffcultes n analyzng her requests, gven the contradcton between the causa petend and the postulaton. We are not dealng wth the hypothess of a sngle employment contract, a matter that could have been deduced.