V The Board of the Labour Appeal Court quashed the dismissal of an employee of a company's call center and ordered restitution in post and the payment of wages.
The decision was based on the work being done by union workers, despite not having been formally elected as a delegate. In the case found that the company did not support union activity and, as accredited judges, the dismissal without cause is explained in this activity will be informally the employee fired.
In this context, the maids explained that in cases of alleged discrimination, the company must prove that the dismissal was due to another reason. "The employer must prove that such causes explain objective, reasonable and proportionate decision themselves, eliminating any suspicion that it hid the injury of a worker's fundamental right," said the maid.
"Given the scenario described circumstantial evidence, I believe that the defendant has failed to prove that the dismissal of the actor has had real causes absolutely bizarre anti-union discrimination, and that those have been significant enough to justify the breach of contract , so that can explain objective, reasonable and proportionate for themselves the decision either, eliminating any suspicion that it hid the injury of the fundamental right of the worker, added in relation to the case study.
With respect to invalidity of the dismissal invoked by the worker, the judges warned that "the essential content of constitutional rights to work and perform any lawful industry, to trade, use and dispose of property and procurement, conferred on the employer, does not include the power to dismiss workers nutum ad, as uncaused, unwarranted, unprovoked and arbitrary. "
"In this case, the action has not only violated the rights of the plaintiff to protection against arbitrary dismissal and work to establish firing an act uncaused and therefore illegal, but also has violated the fundamental right of workers not to be discriminated against for anti ... "said the judges.
For judges, "the State must ensure that individuals can freely exercise their freedom of association without fear that they will be subjected to any violence, and dismissal is a violent way of impeding the exercise of that fundamental right."
"In other words, the dismissal of an employee in retaliation for the exercise of freedom of association violates individual and collective dimensions of this fundamental right, as not only harms the fired workers but also within the scope of collective action that displayed by those who perceive objectively threat of suffering a similar retaliation if they exercise this fundamental right, "they concluded.
FAILURE
INVALIDITY DISMISSAL
Share
0 comments:
Post a Comment