They declare the dismissal unfair despite checking the negligence and reluctance of the workers

The Supreme Court of Justice in Murcia (TSJM) confirmed it as inadmissible dismissal the worker who was accused by the company of negligence and idleness.

In the judgment of March 28, TSJM understands this the dismissal is unfair orders the company to pay the corresponding compensation, although its amount is reduced from the initial 9,700 to 4,500 euros.

The facts date back to June 2022, when the company, where the worker had been providing services as an agricultural worker since 2017, gave him a warning that he refused to sign, due to “repeated attitude of neglect and reluctance towards work”and because his performance is far below the rest of his colleagues.

Far from abandoning his position, the worker continued “with his attitude of neglect and indiscipline on a daily basis without even approaching the minimum parameters set by the company, and if so do his other colleagues,” becoming their work performance is up to 40% below that of their peers.

His attitude, the company claimed, was engineered bad picture and seriously damaged the company, with delay in order delivery, slowing down work for colleagues and product spoilage because it failed in his time.

The worker appealed his dismissal to the court of first instance no. 1 in Cartagena, which declared him inadmissible and ordered the company to reinstate him or compensate him 9,700 euros, the amount the company appealed to the TSJ of Murcia, which limited it to 4,500 euros.

The same court, however, dismissed the worker who did not go to work for fear of covid after disconnection

The sentence indicates that the complainant should have returned to his post, having received a medical discharge, which occurred after an absence of just over three weeks, as the company had assured him that he would have the appropriate EPIS.

The judgment of the Community Court of Murcia responding to his request collected as proven facts that the present appellant worked as a mechanical clerk in a company located in Las Torres de Cotillas.

And he added that after he was on leave and fired He appeared at the company’s offices and instead of returning to his work, he left, saying that he would not do so until he was guaranteed in writing that he would not be infected. those diseases.

His refusal to return to work precipitated his dismissal and appellant lost his employment.

The judgment, as stated in it, is not final, since it can be appealed to the Supreme Court through an appeal to the unification of the doctrine.