Supreme Court ‘revoked doctrine’no shooting‘ law prevailing in the first part of the pandemic, which limits companies from laying off employees for allegedly impacting the accounts of covid. The magistrates of the high court are of the opinion that dismissals cannot be announced automatically. void and thus unites the doctrine in the face of the divergences that show the different courts of justice. For example, Basque magistrates accepted the thesis that dismissals due to covid were invalidated, while Madrid or Catalans preferred inadmissibility. Actually, TSJC He even used one of his sentences to criticize the expression of the norm, given the ambiguity it produced.
Yolanda DÃaz, the only Minister of Labor at the time—now also vice-president—tried to stop a potential avalanche of layoffs at the start of the pandemic and redirect them to the aftermath. My approach was: serious impact on its activities, They did not lay off employees to save costs due to a ban on activities such as bars closing, or because of reduced demand. And for that, it created a norm that prevailed while the initial state of alarm was in effect – which the Supreme Court overturned. This invalidated covid is cited as the reason for dismissal.
Now the supreme court has issued its ruling on this doctrine, overturning the most maximalist interpretations of the rule, which felt that the company had to reinstate the dismissed employee (vacant layoff). The other interpretation, which is unacceptable, allows the company to choose between reinstatement or payment of a compensation. Compensation 33 days per year worked. In a memo advancing the sentencing, Supreme rules that the dismissal “should not be classified as null unless there is some specific data that justifies it.” It also specifies as exceptions the violation of a fundamental right, the violation of the procedural rules on collective dismissal, or the emergence of a subjective situation that provides special protection.
The judges openly disagree with Diaz’s arguments, which he put forward when he presented the norm: “Covid-19 cannot be used to shoot”. “The rule in question contains no real prohibition, nor does the consequences of a fraudulent dismissal necessitate its invalidation. […] Likewise, going to ERTE doesn’t seem like a real necessity,” says Supreme.
Source: Informacion
Christina Moncayo is a contributing writer for “Social Bites”. Her focus is on the gaming industry and she provides in-depth coverage of the latest news and trends in the world of gaming.