Rahu 16D: manager’s agreement not treated as employment; challenge to a board decision left without examination

The court classified the relationship between the manager and the association as a mandate agreement and left the request to set aside the board decision without examination.

Tartu Ringkonnakohus upheld dismissal of XX’s employment and monetary claims against the apartment association RAHU 16D, changing the reasons. However, it replaced dismissal on the merits of the request to set aside a board decision with a decision leaving that part of the claim without examination. Formally, the appeal was dismissed. The claimant acted as building manager and considered the relationship employment. The claimant challenged termination, seeking reinstatement and payments. The appeal sought 128 euros in unpaid remuneration, 512 euros for failure to observe the notice period and 2041 euros for enforced absence. The association argued that the parties had entered into a management services agreement, not an employment contract. The court examined the actual working conditions. The manager independently chose how, when and where to perform tasks and organised repairs, contracts and reporting. The agreement contained no terms on working hours, leave or daily supervision. The court therefore classified it as a mandate agreement: independent performance of tasks in the association’s interests. Neither a tax reporting entry nor comments from the board in themselves turned the relationship into employment. The court found termination of the indefinite mandate agreement permissible and saw no basis for applying remedies for unlawful dismissal of an employee. The separate claim for 128 euros for work already performed was also unsubstantiated. The court did not determine the challenge to the board decision on the merits: the manager was not entitled to bring that claim in the capacity chosen. That part of the earlier judgment was set aside and replaced with a procedural decision. The association’s request to obtain additional information was also refused. Costs at both instances were allocated to the claimant; the county court will determine their amount separately. Actual performance has not been established.

Uphold dismissal of the employment and monetary claims with amended reasons. Set aside the earlier judgment regarding the board decision and leave that part of the claim without examination. Dismiss the appeal; XX bears costs at both instances, with the amount to be determined separately.