Post by account_disabled on Feb 24, 2024 23:30:51 GMT -5
In the same line of ensuring that her appeal was upheld by the Court, the plaintiff cited as a contrasting ruling the one issued by the TSJ of the Valencian Community, of June 30, 2021. In the contrasting 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 Fax Lists 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 contrast judgment the inadmissibility is declared because the final minutes were not provided. nor the agreement reached, only the dismissal letter .
However, although 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.
"There are several indicators that we can infer from such data: the existence of a collective dismissal for objective economic reasons, reaching an agreement between the representation of the company and the workers, the consecutive closure of the company, which is without activity , and the bank overdraft that the extinguishing communication alleges,” reasons the Supreme Court.
Therefore, the High Court understands that there is sufficient evidence in order to apply the evidentiary investment arising from art. 217.3 of the Civil Procedure Law . “ The reality of illiquidity can reasonably be presumed, since they demonstrate the terrible economic situation of the company, so that it was up to the worker to destroy or neutralize these signs, a circumstance that has not occurred .” That is to say, the worker has not provided any information to counteract that indicative panorama.
Therefore, although the burden of proof falls on the company, taking into account that it cannot always be carried out through full proof, and solid evidence of the lack of cash is then valid, more than reasonable, the worker will have the duty to discredit such indications through evidence that demonstrates the existence of liquidity in the company's treasury.
That is, in both sentences it is the same objective Fax Lists 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 contrast judgment the inadmissibility is declared because the final minutes were not provided. nor the agreement reached, only the dismissal letter .
However, although 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.
"There are several indicators that we can infer from such data: the existence of a collective dismissal for objective economic reasons, reaching an agreement between the representation of the company and the workers, the consecutive closure of the company, which is without activity , and the bank overdraft that the extinguishing communication alleges,” reasons the Supreme Court.
Therefore, the High Court understands that there is sufficient evidence in order to apply the evidentiary investment arising from art. 217.3 of the Civil Procedure Law . “ The reality of illiquidity can reasonably be presumed, since they demonstrate the terrible economic situation of the company, so that it was up to the worker to destroy or neutralize these signs, a circumstance that has not occurred .” That is to say, the worker has not provided any information to counteract that indicative panorama.
Therefore, although the burden of proof falls on the company, taking into account that it cannot always be carried out through full proof, and solid evidence of the lack of cash is then valid, more than reasonable, the worker will have the duty to discredit such indications through evidence that demonstrates the existence of liquidity in the company's treasury.