Post by account_disabled on Mar 8, 2024 22:26:48 GMT -5
The Social Chamber of the TSJ of Madrid has taken into account the context in which the message was sent, a context of certain conflict among the staff of the Chamberí Children's Residence, with complaints of affiliated with Workers' Commissions for the treatment meted out by the Director of the Center.
Likewise, the magistrates affirm that the actor does not clearly identify in the message, at least in its first paragraph, any person, alluding to the "management of the center", which according to the appellant should be interpreted as equivalent to the Director of the Residence . which does not appear among the proven facts. And when the "director of the center" is expressly referred to, although due to the position held, in the fourth paragraph.
The initial statements regarding him are not reiterated ("indecent treatment, humiliating treatment, psychological abuse that threatens the dignity and mental health of the Fax Lists workers"), but it refers to the fact that it is "considering requesting the dismissal of the director of the center because it is understood that he does not have all the necessary capabilities to hold this position, fundamentally in relation to the treatment of staff." …». Therefore, the Court rules that it cannot be considered serious inconsideration of a superior for the purposes of incurring the serious misconduct that is attributed to the worker by the defendant.
Such evidence has allowed the TSJ to reach the reasoning that the actor, through the message sent, did not exceed the constitutionally admissible limits and acted within the margins that delimit the legitimate exercise of his fundamental rights of freedom of association (art. 28.1 CE) in relationship with the right to freedom of expression [(art. 20.1 a CE)]. Therefore, the sanction imposed by the company was constitutionally illegitimate, and therefore null , as correctly described in the lower court ruling.
Likewise, the magistrates affirm that the actor does not clearly identify in the message, at least in its first paragraph, any person, alluding to the "management of the center", which according to the appellant should be interpreted as equivalent to the Director of the Residence . which does not appear among the proven facts. And when the "director of the center" is expressly referred to, although due to the position held, in the fourth paragraph.
The initial statements regarding him are not reiterated ("indecent treatment, humiliating treatment, psychological abuse that threatens the dignity and mental health of the Fax Lists workers"), but it refers to the fact that it is "considering requesting the dismissal of the director of the center because it is understood that he does not have all the necessary capabilities to hold this position, fundamentally in relation to the treatment of staff." …». Therefore, the Court rules that it cannot be considered serious inconsideration of a superior for the purposes of incurring the serious misconduct that is attributed to the worker by the defendant.
Such evidence has allowed the TSJ to reach the reasoning that the actor, through the message sent, did not exceed the constitutionally admissible limits and acted within the margins that delimit the legitimate exercise of his fundamental rights of freedom of association (art. 28.1 CE) in relationship with the right to freedom of expression [(art. 20.1 a CE)]. Therefore, the sanction imposed by the company was constitutionally illegitimate, and therefore null , as correctly described in the lower court ruling.