Post by account_disabled on Mar 12, 2024 4:58:58 GMT -5
Said dismissal derives from an employment regulation file for the termination of all employment contracts for objective reasons, which ended with an agreement. At the time of communicating the objective dismissal , the company lacked cash and had an overdraft amounting to 10,357.05 euros . Currently, the company is closed and without activity.
Given the lack of non-payment of compensation, the Email Data plaintiff sued both companies, however, the Alicante Social Court No. 3 partially upheld the lawsuit, declaring the objective dismissal of the employee admissible and condemning Hostelmar Mediterránea to payment of legal compensation for the amount that was recognized at the time to the plaintiff (11,466 euros); while the Vila de Muro company was acquitted.
The lower court ruling was appealed by the plaintiff, but the Superior Court of Justice of the Community of Valencia dismissed said appeal and confirmed the lower court ruling.
Against this new ruling, the worker filed an appeal for the unification of doctrine, with the Social Chamber of the Supreme Court being in charge of resolving the issue of the present litigation: deciding whether the failure to make available the compensatory amount for Objective dismissal after an extinctive ERE that ends with an agreement is cause to declare the dismissal as unfair.
The Supreme Court has allocated the appeal for the unification of doctrine and declared the finality of the sentence handed down by the Superior Court of Justice of the Community of Valencia by reasoning that the lack of liquidity in the ERE has been proven through what was indicated in the dismissal letter and for the subsequent closure of the company, despite the fact that the defendant did not appear at the trial . Well, the worker has not been able to provide any evidence that discredits the illiquidity of the employer.