Post by account_disabled on Mar 12, 2024 4:59:01 GMT -5
The Supreme Court has rejected the argument of the appellant, who highlighted that it was the company's responsibility to allege in the letter and prove at trial that it lacks liquidity to make compensation available to the worker simultaneously with the communication. of dismissal, a burden with which she had not fulfilled at any time since she did not even appear at the trial despite being duly summoned. Likewise, the appellant alleged that the existence or not of liquidity expressed by the company in the dismissal letter, which she considered insufficient, was a controversial fact questioned by that party both in the lawsuit and in the trial.
In the same line of ensuring that her appeal was Email Data upheld by the Court, the plaintiff cited as a contrast ruling the one issued by the TSJ of the Valencian Community, of June 30, 2021. In the contrast ruling, the actor provided services on behalf and order of the same defendant companies, being dismissed on the same date and for the same reasons as the appellant plaintiff, and the recognized compensation was also not paid. Well, in the contrast case, although the dismissal's claim was rejected in the instance, the TSJ of the Valencian Community declared the dismissal inadmissible because the company did not appear at the trial, without verifying that the final minutes or the agreement reached had been provided. , so lack of liquidity was not accepted among the economic causes.
That is, in both sentences it is the same objective dismissal . An ERE is processed that ends by agreement. The respondent declares the dismissal admissible because the proven facts show that the company lacked liquidity at the time of the dismissal, which she infers from the dismissal letter, while in the contrasting ruling the inadmissibility is declared because the final minutes were not provided. nor the agreement reached, only the dismissal letter .
However, despite the fact that both sentences deal with the same dismissal, in the case of the appealed sentence it has been declared proven through the dismissal letter that, not only that the defendant company processed a collective dismissal for the extinction of all employment contracts, reaching an agreement between the representation of the company and the workers, but it also appears as a proven fact that he lacked cash at the time of dismissal and had an overdraft of €10,357.05.
In the same line of ensuring that her appeal was Email Data upheld by the Court, the plaintiff cited as a contrast ruling the one issued by the TSJ of the Valencian Community, of June 30, 2021. In the contrast ruling, the actor provided services on behalf and order of the same defendant companies, being dismissed on the same date and for the same reasons as the appellant plaintiff, and the recognized compensation was also not paid. Well, in the contrast case, although the dismissal's claim was rejected in the instance, the TSJ of the Valencian Community declared the dismissal inadmissible because the company did not appear at the trial, without verifying that the final minutes or the agreement reached had been provided. , so lack of liquidity was not accepted among the economic causes.
That is, in both sentences it is the same objective dismissal . An ERE is processed that ends by agreement. The respondent declares the dismissal admissible because the proven facts show that the company lacked liquidity at the time of the dismissal, which she infers from the dismissal letter, while in the contrasting ruling the inadmissibility is declared because the final minutes were not provided. nor the agreement reached, only the dismissal letter .
However, despite the fact that both sentences deal with the same dismissal, in the case of the appealed sentence it has been declared proven through the dismissal letter that, not only that the defendant company processed a collective dismissal for the extinction of all employment contracts, reaching an agreement between the representation of the company and the workers, but it also appears as a proven fact that he lacked cash at the time of dismissal and had an overdraft of €10,357.05.