The dismissal of Anicette Konan by the Ivorian Radio and Television Broadcasting Corporation (RTI) continues to cause a stir. While her departure is confirmed, the legal classification of the termination is fueling the debate. Management cites "serious misconduct" for insubordination and job abandonment, a claim that labor law expert Arsène Touho considers legally dubious.

The crucial distinction: Intent to harm or simple negligence?

According to the legal expert, RTI seems to have confused serious misconduct with gross negligence . Here's why this distinction is crucial:

1. Serious Misconduct: This concerns actions (such as insubordination or unjustified absence) that make it impossible to keep the employee in the company.
2. Gross Misconduct: It requires additional and complex proof: the manifest intention to harm the employer.

"It is not enough to observe inappropriate behavior; it must be demonstrated that the employee acted with the deliberate intention of harming the institution," the expert emphasizes.

A major legal risk for RTI

According to Arsène Touho, the actions attributed to the presenter are more akin to gross misconduct. By opting for serious misconduct without being able to prove Anicette Konan's malicious intent, RTI is exposing itself to legal setbacks.

1. Fragility of the procedure: In court, the absence of evidence of intent to harm could invalidate the classification of "gross negligence".
2. Financial consequences: A reclassification by a judge would result in the payment of compensation which gross misconduct normally deprives the employee of.
3. Foreseeable litigation: This decision opens the door wide to an uncertain legal battle for the employer.

HR Management Lesson

This episode highlights a common shortcoming in human resources management: a grasp of the intricacies of the Labor Code. For Arsène Touho, prudence should have dictated the use of the term "serious misconduct," which would have been more in line with the reality of the situation.

This case could well become a textbook example of the risks of a hasty legal qualification in the context of a high-profile dismissal.