The Constitutional Court obliges the State to pay a pregnant girl the processing salaries that had been denied to her | Economy | EUROtoday

The State must pay the processing wages misplaced by a girl who was fired whereas pregnant by an organization that later ceased operations. It is the primary consequence of a Constitutional ruling that considers the therapy given to the plaintiff to be discriminatory, since after her dismissal was declared void, she was not in a position to acquire stated pending salaries, not like her different colleagues, who did obtain their compensation as a result of their departure from the corporate was declared inadmissible.

The courts of social jurisdiction acknowledged that the dismissal of the employees was not goal and that they need to be compensated for it. The Administration and the courts subsequently denied the appellant her proper to say processing salaries from the State, as a part of that compensation, within the occasion of the employer's insolvency. Said salaries are those who haven’t been paid from the date on which the declare for dismissal was thought of to have been filed, till the courtroom ruling that declared its inadmissibility, as soon as ninety enterprise days have elapsed from this final date, and from that second on those who exceed the ninety-day interval.

The ruling – of which Judge Ricardo Enríquez, from the conservative sector of the courtroom, was the speaker – explains that the contested resolutions affirmed that the correct to gather processing salaries from the State solely arose when the dismissal is said unfair. That is, as a result of the explanations alleged by the employer for the dismissal will not be true, as occurred with the colleagues of the applicant for defense. However, when the plaintiff's dismissal was declared null and void—since she was pregnant—the processing salaries weren’t paid.

The Constitutional Court has confirmed that each the Administration and the judicial our bodies concerned within the process for cost of pending salaries, by denying the plaintiff her proper to obtain them as a result of her dismissal had been declared void and never unfair, “placed her in a worse situation than to the rest of the workers, finally operating their pregnancy situation as a pernicious element (…) instead of providing the worker with a 'protective bonus' due to her biological state.” In short, a situation occurred that left the woman especially unprotected, which the court described as “an obvious and unjustified pejorative treatment in relation to the rest of the dismissed colleagues,” who had been in a position to acquire their respective processing salaries.

The ruling causes that for these causes the bolstered safety mechanism for pregnant staff legally supplied for within the Workers' Statute, so as to promote equal alternatives at work and keep away from discrimination based mostly on intercourse, “became against him”. The recognition of the nullity of her dismissal, in short, instead of benefiting her, placed her “in a worse condition than the rest of her co-workers, by denying her the right to obtain from the State the part of the salaries that she was legally entitled to assume.” ”.

The courtroom offers a blow to the labor jurisdiction our bodies that heard the case, as a result of it considers that the interpretation made by the appealed resolutions was “rigorous, literal and formalistic of ordinary legality,” which is opposite to the constitutional prohibition of discrimination based mostly on purpose of intercourse. The ruling, briefly, resolves the appellant's declare, particularly recalling its reiterated doctrine on the constitutional prohibition of discrimination on the idea of intercourse, which incorporates within the office the organic reality of being pregnant as a component or differential issue that impacts completely on girls. All of those elements, the courtroom emphasizes, require “an area of ​​reinforced protection that translates into the preservation of her professional rights for the pregnant working woman.”

Hence, subsequently, the ruling grants safety to the plaintiff, with the popularity of her elementary proper to non-discrimination. This entails, as measures for the reparation of his proper, the annulment of all of the resolutions issued within the referred process, with retroaction of the actions to the second instantly previous to the one issued to disclaim him the processing salaries. And that’s the reason it asks that as an alternative “a new decision that is respectful of the recognized fundamental right” be adopted, and that the affected get together obtain the salaries owed to her.

Follow all the data Economy and enterprise in Facebook y Xor in our publication semanal