172.31
LPERS-VD
CH-VD
CH-VD
Art. 59 Gesetz über das Staatspersonal des Kantons Waadt (LPers-VD) - b) Nach der Probezeit
Kapitel VI
Art. 59 LPers-VD - b) Nach der Probezeit · b) Nach der Probezeit
1. Sofern keine abweichende Vereinbarung vorliegt, können der Mitarbeiter oder die Anstellungsbehörde den Vertrag unter Einhaltung einer Kündigungsfrist von einem Monat auf Ende eines Monats im ersten Jahr und von drei Monaten auf Ende eines Monats ab dem zweiten Jahr kündigen.
2. Der Staatsrat kann für bestimmte Funktionskategorien längere Fristen und besondere Austrittsmodalitäten vereinbaren.
3. Vorbehältlich der Anwendungsfälle der Artikel 61 und 63 kann die Anstellungsbehörde den Vertrag nur kündigen, nachdem sie eine schriftliche Verwarnung ausgesprochen hat. Ein Reglement regelt das Verfahren. Die Anstellungsbehörde begründet die Kündigung mit
a. der Verletzung gesetzlicher oder vertraglicher Pflichten;
b. erwiesener Untauglichkeit;
c. dem dauerhaften Wegfall der in einem normativen Text oder im Arbeitsvertrag festgelegten Anstellungsbedingungen.
Gerichtsentscheide zu dieser Bestimmung (12)
Jug.2022.475 · vd (art. 59 al. 1er et 3 LPers-VD)
Public Employee v. State: Admissibility of Appeal Challenging Official Warning Despite Expiration of Deadline During Judicial Recess
Cited in relation to the subsequent immediate termination, used to determine the continuing interest in challenging the prior warning.
Jug.2022.474 · vd (art. 59 LPers-VD)
Police Officer Disciplinary Warning Upheld After Criminal Conviction for Excessive Force
The court confirmed the warning issued in application of this article.
Jug.2021.271 · vd (Art. 59 al. 3 lit. a) LPers-VD)
Employee Warning Annulled for Disproportionate Disciplinary Action
This provision was cited in the reasoning (IV) as the basis for finding that the employee violated her duties by her behaviour, even though the final order ultimately annulled the warning.
Jug.2021.271 · vd (art. 59 al. 3 LPers-VD)
Employee Warning Annulled for Disproportionate Disciplinary Action
Cited in the reasoning (II.a) regarding the conditions under which the employer can terminate a contract, which requires a prior warning.
Jug.2021.158 · vd (art. 59 al. 3 let. b LPers-VD)
Employee Dismissal Upheld Due to Proven Incompetence and Failure to Adapt
This article was the legal basis for the defendant's decision to dismiss the plaintiff for proven incompetence.
HC.2019.941 · vd (Art. 59 al. 3 LPers-VD)
Cantonal Administration v. Employee Regarding Lawful Dismissal for Dereliction of Duty
This provision was cited in the dismissal letter (point 4.f) and served as the legal basis for the termination, which the Court upheld in its final orders.
Jug.2019.238 · vd (art. 59 al. 3 LPers-VD)
Chancery Chief Termination Upheld for Persistent Dereliction of Duty
Cited as the legal basis for upholding the dismissal due to violation of duties and proven unfitness.
Jug.2015.284 · vd (art. 59 al. 3 lettre a LPers-VD)
Employee Termination Appeal Following Workplace Dispute and Insubordination Finding
The court found the dismissal to be based on the violation of legal or contractual duties, as cited in the final order.
HC.2012.438 · vd (Art. 59 LPers-VD)
Wrongful Termination Due to Inadmissible Electronic Surveillance Evidence
This provision defines the grounds for ordinary termination, used here to determine the notice period that would have applied if the termination had been ordinary (relevant for calculating the compensation under Art. 337c CO).
HC.2012.361 · vd (Art. 59 LPers-VD)
Employee v. State Employer: Unjustified Immediate Dismissal for Misappropriation
This article, outlining the grounds for termination, was referenced in the discussion concerning whether the employee's actions constituted a violation of duties, even though the main conclusion was that the termination was unjustified under Art. 61 LPers-VD.
HC.2010.578 · vd (Art. 59 al. 3 LPers-VD)
Employee Misconduct and Disciplinary Action Appeal
Cited in the reasoning section as the rule requiring a written warning before contract termination, justifying the context of the decision being reviewed (the warning itself).
Jug.2024.538 · vd (art. 59 al. 1 LPers-VD)
Teacher Dismissal Over Vulgar Language Ruled Unjustified
Used to determine the notice period length (3 months) for calculating the compensation under art. 337c al. 1 CO, as per case law.