Iberia should pay 1,500 euros to an worker for altering its agenda for no motive and with little margin throughout the pandemic | My rights | Economy | EUROtoday

The Superior Court of Justice (TSJ) of Madrid has condemned Iberia for altering the work agenda of an worker with out notifying sufficient upfront. The magistrates have ratified the judgment of the Social Court quantity 3 of Madrid, which has already declared that the airline had breached the collective settlementfor violating the marked occasions to reorganize the employees calendar. The magistrates of the TSJ have failed towards the corporate after verifying that it modified the worker -free days and not using a legitimate justification and with out giving margin to adapt to alter. The worker demanded compensation of three,200 euros for damages, however the magistrates have diminished the quantity to 1,500.

According to the confirmed info of the sentence, final February, (entry its content material right here), the worker works as an auxiliary providers agent on the Barajas airport since 1988, with a full -time contract divided into shifts. The employee accepted the ERT by power majeure that the corporate launched on account of the well being disaster by the COVID that prolonged till 2022. Iberia modified the plan of the shifts of those staff after their reinstatement, which denounced the union we’re commerce unionists.

According to the Iberia collective settlement, the corporate could make as much as two adjustments monthly within the programming of every employee, offered they impart no less than 15 days upfront. It can also be allowed to warn with solely 48 hours upfront in distinctive circumstancesfor instance, when “the load terminal goes from 380 workers to 50 ″ or if there are no“ scheduled passenger flights in which load is usually transported. ”In the latter case, the corporate clarifies, it’s notified with such a short while as a result of, in contrast to the journeys that embody passengers, the load flights throughout the pandemic have been scheduled from in the future to a different to move sanitary materials reminiscent of take a look at, mast Hydroalcoholic, vaccines or particular person protecting tools.

During the trial, Iberia alleges that adjustments in programming reply to an distinctive state of affairs. According to their testimony, the load terminal initially had 350 and 380 staff, however solely 50 left after the ERT. In addition, they added, their work was to fulfill the demand for solely loading flights, since there have been no working passengers for the pandemic. Not having sufficient maneuvering margin to prepare merchandise journeys, the corporate needed to change the employee’s agenda in such a short while.

The TSJ of Madrid, nevertheless, rejects its arguments. The motive is that the airline doesn’t justify the explanation why the variety of staff was diminished, nor does it show the explanations that motivated them to alter the worker’s agenda. “It is not denied that the company, in the abstract, has the right to modify the turn in exceptional cases. What is not proven is that those causes that prevented the company to meet the 48 hours of notice,” the magistrates level out.

The indisputable fact that there was a worldwide pandemic that impacts air site visitors will not be adequate motive to alter work schedules. For the Madrid courtroom, the well being disaster doesn’t exempt the corporate from accrediting why the adjustments have been made (principally, greater than two monthly), how they have been carried out or after they communicated. “By the principle of probative ease, it is up to the company to demonstrate both the moment and the way it acted,” he says.

Finally, the Court maintains compensation of 1,500 euros set by the labor choose. The firm had challenged the quantity claiming that the injury had not been accomplished or a causal hyperlink between the injury suffered and the quantity imposed was evidenced. However, the TSJ of Madrid considers that the injury was already accredited by forcing the employee to reorganize his private life with little margin. In the Court’s opinion, this suggests a injury to the reconciliation of household life, so the worker doesn’t should display “if he had to change a date for a meal or for a meeting, since he is public and notorious and, therefore, exempt from trial, that sudden changes of schedules harm the one who suffers them,” conclude the magistrates.