Regardless of what purpose you do this for, because collapse of suspended ceiling The detection of some cracks is a justifiable reason for termination. This is what he sees as a sentence, delivered. vigo and there is an appeal that upholds the dismissal of the clerk who, along with another colleague, was responsible for the collapse of a store’s roof. This security camera recordings They were the key to the solution.
The employee took it to the Supreme Court, claiming that he was dismissed. compensation guaranteethat is, their right not to retaliate for reporting the company they work for. And the clerk had complained to the Labor Inspectorate two days before the collapse because “their bosses made them work despite the danger of the roof collapsing.” despise and humiliate themfeels discriminated against other stores of the same company”.
However, in the decision made by the Magistrate of Social Court No. 4 in Vigo at the end of last year, the allegations made by the marketer are rejected. First, the workers They did not inform their superiors. From the aforementioned cracks that one of the two owners of the business saw during a visit to the store in early May. The businesswoman commented that a repair was needed and asked them not to hang anything from some decorative logs fixed to the ceiling.
Security camera two days after filing a complaint with the Labor Inspectorate on 21 May save workers pulling some cables decorative logs fixed to the ceiling. They do it both with their hands and with a broomstick until part of the cover comes off unharmed. After four days they prolong their complaints and after five daysthe plaintiff is dismissed (the decision never refers to the fate of the other worker).
camera use
The worker also objected to the use of the security camera as evidence and claimed that he was unaware of its existence. However, the judge approves of its use because Marked and remember that according to the jurisprudence, “Workers don’t need approval” for the adoption of a labor activity control measure”.
The judge does not examine whether the employee’s behavior was fraudulent – malicious – or what they were looking for by pulling the wires. However, he sees the act as serious enough to warrant dismissal.
Source: Informacion
James Sean is a writer for “Social Bites”. He covers a wide range of topics, bringing the latest news and developments to his readers. With a keen sense of what’s important and a passion for writing, James delivers unique and insightful articles that keep his readers informed and engaged.