resting too much is already grounds for dismissal

  • 2

The origin of this story begins to sound familiar: a company monitors an employee who teleworks, considers that he is not complying with what is included in his contract and fires him. It is not the first time that it happens, nor the first time that justice endorses it. But in the case that concerns us, what is striking is that the Superior Court of Justice of Castilla y León has considered pertinent an almost obsessive monitoring of the professional as proof of dismissal.

millimeter control. The contract of the employee in question, a telemarketer, stated that the professional had the right to 10 minutes of ordinary rest during his daily workday, to seven or eight breaks of five minutes per hour of work and, exceptionally, to stop attending the telephone to make pending calls or manage with a client. Although to do the latter he had to ask his superiors for permission each time.

The case. The professional began working remotely in March 2020 as a result of the pandemic. After a few months, he signed a telecommuting agreement in which he agreed that the company would monitor calls with the aim, as the company specified in the contract, of helping him improve his productivity data.

In September 2021, the company informed him that he was being fired for widely exceeding the stipulated break times. The company had warned him on several occasions about it, without the employee changing his behavior.

Your company can monitor your screen while you telecommute and fire you.  Justice already endorses it

Dismissal from. As we already explained in Xataka, if the company duly informs and the employee accepts the monitoring conditions, the company can lawfully use that information to justify a dismissal, as has happened in this case. Therefore, this route ruled out, the affected party tried to have the termination of his contract considered null, arguing that the indicated fault, resting too much, could not be considered indiscipline behavior that constituted a breach of contractual good faith.

“Punishable disobedience”. The Social Court No. 1 of Salamanca, however, considered that the dismissal was appropriate because “it is evident that the actor’s conduct constitutes punishable disobedience, because despite the company’s repeated requests to reduce his rest times and , above all, he requested the proper authorization, he persisted in his attitude”. A sentence that now ratifies the Superior Court of Justice of Castilla y León after the appeal of the affected.

In this case, the courts highlight the persistent and repeated behavior, ignoring the company’s warnings, as a reason for the manifest breach of discipline, which constitutes a very serious offense according to article 66.4 of the II Statewide collective agreement for the contact center sector.

Image: Pavel Danieluk

The origin of this story begins to sound familiar: a company monitors an employee who teleworks, considers that he is…

The origin of this story begins to sound familiar: a company monitors an employee who teleworks, considers that he is…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.