Post by account_disabled on Mar 5, 2024 4:52:41 GMT 1
In this judicial investigation, full value has been given to the audios provided by the plaintiff, recognized by the inspector himself who intervened in them; and the emails exchanged, as they have not been challenged. The WhatsApp messages have not suffered the same fate , to which “no evidentiary value has been granted . ” The ruling differentiates moral harassment from the arbitrary exercise of corporate managerial power, since there are different reasons that induce the employer or superior to arbitrarily use his power. Harassment, he points out, has to be repeated and have the objective of denigrating or harming the dignity or psychological integrity of the worker.
The fact that the functions of the position were not clear is directly attributable to the Administration itself, the ruling indicates; In addition, the order given orally to the subordinate to occupy the boss's office is also doubtful. The judge points out that the requests for personnel made by the police Fax Lists were justified, given “the relevant dance of officials” that occurs in the unit and that gives rise to situations in which there is only one agent serving. On the other hand, he does not consider credible the citizen complaints about the operation of the unit, which were highlighted by the co-defendants, of which one of them, the superior, even reported harassment by the police. The judge, who discards some of the police's allegations, does not, however, consider the deprivation of the office justified , even though it is attempted to be justified as measures to prevent greater evils for the worker who had just returned to work.
“All of the above allows us to conclude that in the instant case the existence of workplace harassment by the co-defendants () against the plaintiff has been proven, which automatically leads to the violation of the Fundamental Right to Moral Integrity of Article 15 CE. . It understands that article 14 of the same text has also been violated, considering that women have suffered discrimination based on sex.
Furthermore, "it is clear that the Administration has clearly failed to prevent the plaintiff from being exposed to the situation of workplace harassment that has been proven in this procedure: "Both ex ante when said situation of harassment began (the preventive measures developed until then did not even contemplate it), such as during and ex post (the preventive visits to the workplace were insufficient to detect the harassment situation and even when the plaintiff tried to activate the Anti-Harassment Protocol once she became aware of said norm and having initiated the IT situation, its request was filed outright based on the existence of a prior administrative procedure of an unregulated nature not incompatible a priori with the activation of the aforementioned Protocol itself).
The fact that the functions of the position were not clear is directly attributable to the Administration itself, the ruling indicates; In addition, the order given orally to the subordinate to occupy the boss's office is also doubtful. The judge points out that the requests for personnel made by the police Fax Lists were justified, given “the relevant dance of officials” that occurs in the unit and that gives rise to situations in which there is only one agent serving. On the other hand, he does not consider credible the citizen complaints about the operation of the unit, which were highlighted by the co-defendants, of which one of them, the superior, even reported harassment by the police. The judge, who discards some of the police's allegations, does not, however, consider the deprivation of the office justified , even though it is attempted to be justified as measures to prevent greater evils for the worker who had just returned to work.
“All of the above allows us to conclude that in the instant case the existence of workplace harassment by the co-defendants () against the plaintiff has been proven, which automatically leads to the violation of the Fundamental Right to Moral Integrity of Article 15 CE. . It understands that article 14 of the same text has also been violated, considering that women have suffered discrimination based on sex.
Furthermore, "it is clear that the Administration has clearly failed to prevent the plaintiff from being exposed to the situation of workplace harassment that has been proven in this procedure: "Both ex ante when said situation of harassment began (the preventive measures developed until then did not even contemplate it), such as during and ex post (the preventive visits to the workplace were insufficient to detect the harassment situation and even when the plaintiff tried to activate the Anti-Harassment Protocol once she became aware of said norm and having initiated the IT situation, its request was filed outright based on the existence of a prior administrative procedure of an unregulated nature not incompatible a priori with the activation of the aforementioned Protocol itself).