We use our own cookies and third parties ones to offer our services and collect statistical data. If you continue browsing the internet you accept them. More information

Accept
Back

Compensation for transfer of work center

In this article, our lawyers specialized in labor law, will analyze the recent jurisprudence of the judgment of the Social Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Castilla y León, where the transfer and change of workplace to a worker who provided their job duties in an office as an administrator.

Subsequently, said worker underwent a transfer and change of workplace to her employer's factory.

In the sentence analyzed, it is concluded that the moral integrity of the worker is violated, since the pertinent requirements and reasons are not given for a worker as an administrator to have to carry out her job functions in a factory. Given that his workplace for professional purposes is the office, therefore, said transfer cannot be accepted as a justified business decision, and the company must compensate the employee.

In the resolution issued by the Superior Court of Justice, the acceptance of compensation for violation of the right to moral integrity is confirmed. According to our lawyers, it was concluded that the tasks to be performed by the employee in the factory only comprised ten percent of her total work time, a decision that did not justify the transfer from the office to the factory.

Provision of documentation by the company

The ruling states that there is insufficient evidence to be able to ensure that the transfer and change of work center was necessary and that, therefore, it was essential for the development of work activity.

The employer provided documentation regarding reports and emails in which it was attempted to demonstrate that the presence of the worker in the factory was completely necessary for the achievement of her working day.

In conclusion, the Court ruled that "the need for an administrative work to be carried out in the warehouse cannot be deduced at all, when it is proven that the plaintiff's work was being carried out in 90% in the office and only 10% in the factory".

Finally, the court declares that the documentation provided by the employer "is about documents so general and evaluative without any objective criteria that their expression in the proven facts prevents reaching any definitive conclusion other than the mere existence of said documents and taking them as reproduced."

The court rules that there was no mobbing

In the judgment analyzed by our labor law attorneys, the Court dismisses the existence of mobbing or workplace harassment.

According to the TSJ, there is no evidence to prove that the decision taken without justification amounts to retaliation for the state of sick leave taken by the employee as a result of the detection of cancer. The court bases the decision that in order to be mobbed, there should be continuous harassment over time, in order to give rise to said situation.

We remind you that at Forcam Abogados, lawyers specialized in labor law will be able to clarify any doubts that may arise in your specific case.

You can follow us on Linkedin and keep up to date with our news.