|
Babel Fish translation, if that helps for anyone.
The judge considers the dismissal of a delegate of the UGT of Catalonia in COMSA null RAIL TRANSPORT to be union persecution
The sentence gathers that the company, subcontracted by the RENFE in the station of Barcelona Morrot i Dog Tunis, already had considered to look for any mechanism to dismiss it by the denunciations that had presented/displayed to the Inspection of Work as well as other vindications that caused incomodidad to the direction Delegate of the UGT of Catalonia Xavier Rivada has obtained sentence favorable of Court Social number 8 of Barcelona (he sentences number 312/06 of 24 of October of 2006), which he has declared the invalidity of his dismissal to be a retaliation by his union activity, and has condemned to company UTE COMSA MORROT, society integrated by constructor COMSA S.A. and branch COMSA RAIL TRANSPORT LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (company to which the Ministry of Public Works and the Economy has granted the first license of railway operator that qualifies it to compete with the RENFE) to the immediate readmisión of the worker and to pay all the lazy wages to him to perceive from its dismissal (1 of December of 2005).
UTE COMSA MORROT, subcontracted by the RENFE for the formation and maneuver of trains in the station of Morrot and Can Tunis of Barcelona, dismissed Xavier Rivada when considering that it had incurred very serious a labor lack by, according to the company, to influence the workers so that they went to another company, SLISA, that also chose to the accomplishment of this activity in the station, since the RENFE was going to remove again contracts it aid.
However, the sentence gathers that the COMSA workers already spoke from towards months of the change of company in the station and were worried about their labor situation, so that Xavier Rivada, in his function of union delegate, had gone to the work center to explain the companions as they could be his labor conditions and the change of agreement in case of taking place the change of company.
The sentence also gathers like proven fact that "prior to the dismissal of the actor the demanded company had raised to look for any mechanism to dismiss the actor, given the denunciations to inspection that this presented/displayed as well as other vindications that caused incomodidad in the company".
The worker venia denounced facts such as that in the work center the group did not have access to the potable water nor to a portable medicine kit, the necessary improvement of clothes, the errors committed by the company in the dates of discharge in order to cause to the benefits of the Social security system right, the necessary improvements in the measures of individual protection and clothes of work, the absence of evaluation of risks in the implementation of work systems, the nonexistent coordination of operations that existed in the center and the risks that this irresponsibility generated, not to have formed in the matter of prevention of labor risks several workers, lack of the necessary method of cleaning of the clothes of work before the contact with chemical agents, the existing vulneración of the rights of the workers after to have modified injustificadamente its conditions of work, risks by the nonpaving of the corridors between the routes, the serious deficiencies in the formation made by the company for the obtaining of the gruista card, etc.
With respect to the "disloyalty towards his company as opposed to the competition", to which she makes reference COMSA in the letter of dismissal i that indicates like cause, the judge gathers a previous consideration of the Constitutional Court (he sentences 134/1994 of 9 of May): "the representative union function is not characterized to be based on you formulate of composition or collaboration with the company, but of self-defense or car trusteeship in which it is not possible to plead for the existence of a generic one to have of loyalty with a omnicomprensivo meaning of subjection of the worker to the enterprise interest".
In addition, the judge also indicates that when a worker alleges that a disciplinary dismissal conceals a violation of its fundamental rights, has to be the company the one that credits objective causes, reasonable and provided, since "any reason does not serve to justify the dismissal, because in opposite case the industralist could conceal a discriminatory dismissal under the pretext of small contractual breaches very well".
Thus, the sentence determines, being based on different articles from the Spanish Constitution and the Statute of the Workers, which "the dismissal will have to declare null (...) when reaching this juzgador the conviction that this form leaves from a retaliation by the exercise of carried out the legal actions and union by the worker, looking for intentionally cover towards the extinction of the labor relation".
|