Use of mobile phone during business hoursdespite company notice about what you cannot use This device does not seem to be sufficient reason to justify the dismissal of an employee. This is stated in a decision of the TSJB confirming the previous decision that the dismissal was annulled and the employer was forced to reinstate the worker or pay him compensation.
This woman hired as a clerk for a grocery store Palm. agreement assistant shop assistant. In the document signed by the worker, It is forbidden to use private mobile phones during the day and working hours..
Employee with signature of recruitment document also accepted the ban on using e-mailor surfing the Internet during working hours.
In the middle of the 2020 season, the employer informed the employee about his situation. dismissal discipline. she said she was recorded by security camera tried with cell phone get private company information. Made Photos from a series documentsa situation reflected in the security camera installed in the store.
The company thought the store clerk had committed a crime. very serious mistakeamong other things, for signing an agreement security and professional secrecy.
This harsh decision of the company did not receive support from the judiciary. One of the points discussed was whether this was legal. The company will use the record as proof act contrary to the interests of the employee.
The clerk claimed that he was not informed oh store installed registry can serve as evidence against him.
While the judges understand that the recording is not illegal evidence, as the clerk said, these images didn’t show anything suspicious either. In other words, they do not prove that the employee took images of the employer’s private documents.
In fact, the court of first instance decided that the evidence was obtained unlawfully, as the employee was not informed that the footage taken from the security camera could be used in an incident. conflict of discipline. And in that sense, the sentence indicated that although the employee knew there was a camera in the store, he was unaware that it was being used as evidence in the employment lawsuit. About this topic, The TSJB commented that the employer was not required to disclose the exact purpose of the surveillance cameras. those established at work.
Despite the record is treated as legal evidenceThe court considered that not enough justifying the dismissal of the worker. ” The simple use of a mobile phone by the worker during working hours is insufficient to justify dismissal.“, as in Contract clause It will include an express prohibition of using the telephone in question during working hours. According to this criterion, the judges consider the dismissal of the worker unlawful.
Source: Informacion
Calvin Turley is an author at “Social Bites”. He is a trendsetter who writes about the latest fashion and entertainment news. With a keen eye for style and a deep understanding of the entertainment industry, Calvin provides engaging and informative articles that keep his readers up-to-date on the latest fashion trends and entertainment happenings.