Post by account_disabled on Jan 18, 2024 6:20:35 GMT -5
TSJM in cassation for the unification of doctrine for violation of article 52 ET, because it considered that the legal presuppositions that enable the termination of the employment relationship were met . The contrast ruling shown by the company refers to another worker in an identical situation on which the same Social Chamber of the TSJM ruled differently .
The question to be resolved, points out the Supreme Court, is whether the new company awarded a public service can terminate the employment relationship due to ineptitude arising under 52 ET, once it has been subrogated to the wo Whatsapp Number List rkers of the previous concessionaire and finds that They do not have the qualifications required to perform the job.
Sudden ineptitude, in the absence of an express legal definition, is associated with a lack of ability to perform the work activity that results in incompetence or incompetence and translates into low performance or productivity of a permanent nature and not related to a fraudulent attitude of the worker () For these purposes, it is necessary to understand that ineptitude occurs due to the lack of legal condition or specific requirement , such as the absence of the title. Regarding this specific circumstance.
STS 642/2021, which determined that a foreign worker who lost his residence permit made it impossible for the worker to continue in the job. Although a 1990 TS ruling restricted the application of supervening ineptitude to the loss of powers that would allow the work to be carried out as it had been done until now, the High Court considered that doctrine to have been overcome and contemplated that the lack of the enabling title must be contemplated in this circumstance.
“The company has faithfully complied with the subrogation obligation,” states ruling 306/2023 . In the words of the resolution, “there is not the slightest indication that allows us to suspect that the business action could be classified as abusive, tortious or fraudulent because it was carried out with the aim of evading the subrogation obligations derived from the collective agreement, under the subterfuge of appearing to assume the said obligation and subsequently articulate an objective dismissal lacking any basis to circumvent it.”
The question to be resolved, points out the Supreme Court, is whether the new company awarded a public service can terminate the employment relationship due to ineptitude arising under 52 ET, once it has been subrogated to the wo Whatsapp Number List rkers of the previous concessionaire and finds that They do not have the qualifications required to perform the job.
Sudden ineptitude, in the absence of an express legal definition, is associated with a lack of ability to perform the work activity that results in incompetence or incompetence and translates into low performance or productivity of a permanent nature and not related to a fraudulent attitude of the worker () For these purposes, it is necessary to understand that ineptitude occurs due to the lack of legal condition or specific requirement , such as the absence of the title. Regarding this specific circumstance.
STS 642/2021, which determined that a foreign worker who lost his residence permit made it impossible for the worker to continue in the job. Although a 1990 TS ruling restricted the application of supervening ineptitude to the loss of powers that would allow the work to be carried out as it had been done until now, the High Court considered that doctrine to have been overcome and contemplated that the lack of the enabling title must be contemplated in this circumstance.
“The company has faithfully complied with the subrogation obligation,” states ruling 306/2023 . In the words of the resolution, “there is not the slightest indication that allows us to suspect that the business action could be classified as abusive, tortious or fraudulent because it was carried out with the aim of evading the subrogation obligations derived from the collective agreement, under the subterfuge of appearing to assume the said obligation and subsequently articulate an objective dismissal lacking any basis to circumvent it.”