The Social Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Extremadura has failed that leave the view room for a few minutes to talk to one of the witnesses It does not violate, per sethe right to effective judicial protection and a process with all guarantees. Based on this, other reasons, it has dismissed the appeal filed by a company against one of its employees in a case on disciplinary dismissal.
As stated in the sentence (whose content can be consulted by clicking on ‘Download Resolution’), the litigation in question originated after a company dedicated to the construction sector decided to fire one of its workers for, as detail by the dismissal letter, “try without success to negotiate a dismissal to collect unemployment and even compensation.” An act that, as it includes the mercantile, constitutes a fraudulent practice that could lead to a criminal process for crime against social security.
Specifically, the company argued that after denying the worker the agreed dismiss April”.
Among the offenses detail by the company in the dismissal letter are behaviors such as taking the mobile phone during working hours, trying to force its illegitimate and illegal claims – these are, to be fired through an agreement with the commercial one – and not attend a 60 -hour occupational risk prevention course, which caused a large loss of bonus from which the construction company had been benefited. Likewise, it was denounced that the employee had committed unjustified delays in the signing of the payroll and had been looking for other jobs during working hours.
(Image: File)
The company must compensate the worker with almost 2,000 euros
In spite requested that its cessation be considered as inadmissible and, therefore, it is compensated with the sum of almost 2,000 euros. A decision that, according to the Court, was taken after considering that “the alleged fraudulent action of the worker is based on a series of facts that considers that they are not serious or concrete enough” to prove the dismissal.
Not in accordance with this signaling (shared in LinkedIn by the Professor of Labor Law and Social Security, Francisco Trujillo), The construction company filed an appeal for supplication in which, as the main request, it requested that the previous sentence be annulled and the cars were replaced at the time of the trial. Also – and subsidiary – requested that the sentence be revocated and the dismissal was described as appropriate. A series of demands that carried out, among other issues, under article 193 a) of the Regulatory Law of Social Jurisdiction (LRJS).
The appellant stands out, specifically, that during the celebration of the act of the trial «an unusual event occurred, when the actor left the Chamber to meet with one of the witnesses and subsequently re -entered, declaring that despite the fact that he was a contaminated witness, understanding that these facts imply a violation of the right to effective judicial protection and a process with all the guarantees, infringing the article 24 of the Constitution and affirming that the Constitution and affirming. what was declared by cited witness can be taken into account when issuing a sentence ».
However, the Superior Court of Justice of Extremadura has sentenced that, as the company did not specify to what extent its rights were violated by leaving the demanding worker the view room for a few minutes, It cannot be deduced that the witness’s statement was relevant to reach the conviction of the judge and, ultimately, to declare the inadmissibility of the dismissal that the company challenged.
