Post by account_disabled on Feb 15, 2024 0:44:21 GMT -5
If an employee is not sanctioned when appropriate, business inactivity cannot favor the company, it must favor the worker . In these terms, the Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia pronounces itself by declaring as inadmissible a disciplinary dismissal that would have been completely valid if it were not for the fact that the action deserving of dismissal had expired when the termination of the employment relationship was agreed.
The company accused the actor of repeated breaches of his obligations over a very long period of time. He did not deliver the weekly reports, failed to complete the assigned work, submitted false work reports and did not attend the work meetings to which he was called, for which he considered that he had incurred fraud, disloyalty and abuse of trust.
The worker, a salesperson, filed a lawsuit against the company, considering the unfair dismissal, which the Mataró Social Court rejected. The court considered that Las Vegas Email List it was a continuing offense . In these cases, the limitation period established in article 60 of the Workers' Statute begins "on the day on which the company has complete, complete and exact knowledge of them" and this is understood to have been reached "when it reaches “a company body endowed with sanctioning or inspection powers.”
It is evident that the company has always had full and direct knowledge of the indiscipline offenses that have been attributed to the worker since at least July 2021, so we cannot classify the offenses committed as if they were continuous, but rather as "many successive offenses or a plurality of offenses that are repeated over time and that were tolerated by the company until it decided to sanction the worker , which could have been done previously," the resolution reads. Thus, taking into account that, since the last serious offense, more than 60 days had passed (article 54 of the Collective Agreement for Commerce in Catalonia), these must be considered prescribed and cannot serve as a basis for disciplinary dismissal.
In this way, the TSJ of Catalonia upholds the appeal, revokes the lower court ruling, declaring the dismissal inadmissible and forces the company to choose between reinstating the worker under the same conditions as before the dismissal, with the payment of the processing salaries, or definitively terminate the employment contract after compensation of 15,272 euros.
The company accused the actor of repeated breaches of his obligations over a very long period of time. He did not deliver the weekly reports, failed to complete the assigned work, submitted false work reports and did not attend the work meetings to which he was called, for which he considered that he had incurred fraud, disloyalty and abuse of trust.
The worker, a salesperson, filed a lawsuit against the company, considering the unfair dismissal, which the Mataró Social Court rejected. The court considered that Las Vegas Email List it was a continuing offense . In these cases, the limitation period established in article 60 of the Workers' Statute begins "on the day on which the company has complete, complete and exact knowledge of them" and this is understood to have been reached "when it reaches “a company body endowed with sanctioning or inspection powers.”
It is evident that the company has always had full and direct knowledge of the indiscipline offenses that have been attributed to the worker since at least July 2021, so we cannot classify the offenses committed as if they were continuous, but rather as "many successive offenses or a plurality of offenses that are repeated over time and that were tolerated by the company until it decided to sanction the worker , which could have been done previously," the resolution reads. Thus, taking into account that, since the last serious offense, more than 60 days had passed (article 54 of the Collective Agreement for Commerce in Catalonia), these must be considered prescribed and cannot serve as a basis for disciplinary dismissal.
In this way, the TSJ of Catalonia upholds the appeal, revokes the lower court ruling, declaring the dismissal inadmissible and forces the company to choose between reinstating the worker under the same conditions as before the dismissal, with the payment of the processing salaries, or definitively terminate the employment contract after compensation of 15,272 euros.