Australian News

Australian news and media publication

A federal court struck down the absolute validity of the resignation letter used by a company to defend itself against a lawsuit for unfair dismissal. With a jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) to protect dismissed pregnant workers, it protected the rights of an employee separated from her position after having suffered a stroke.

The labor authorities should not accredit a supposed resignation, but judge with gender perspective and observe if there is a possible act of discrimination, resolved the First Collegiate Court in Civil and Labor Matters of the Seventeenth Circuit.

The case analyzed by its members was that of a worker who reported to a Conciliation Board that she had been unjustified dismissal. But the defense of the company for which she worked assured that she had resigned and presented a document signed by the former employee.

The woman had been working for that company for more than 13 years when she suffered a brain Atack. After several months of recovery, he returned to his post. However, due to the consequences “that prevented him from carrying out the activities” he was carrying out, he requested a change of area.

In the end, he was left out of that work center and the Conciliation Board admitted as evidence in favor of the company the resignation letter signed, “without commenting on the illness reported by the worker. Against that determination, it promoted a direct amparo trial,” reports the Federal Judicial Weekly.

In resolving that appeal, Judge María del Carmen Cordero Martínez recalled the guidelines established by the Second Chamber of the SCJN: the courts have to “resolve giving a reinforced motivation, which, unlike the ordinary one, must address the arguments related to the discriminatory situation in a timely, well-founded and reasoned manner and reason the reasons and grounds for the decision.

With this he established an isolated labor thesis —published in the Weekly last Friday, January 7—, which is added to a jurisprudence of the Court to protect workers with a gender perspective.

Background of legal protection

In 2019 the SCJN issued a jurisprudence when analyzing the protection of a pregnant worker. She also reported unfair dismissal due to his physical condition before a Conciliation Board, and also on that occasion the labor authorities closed the case when the company showed them a resignation letter signed by former employee.

One of the recurrent bad practices in many workplaces is to make your staff sign a blank letter or, flatly, a resignation letter, they do this even from the hiring. The vulnerability in which many people who need the job find themselves prevents them from refusing that request.

Therefore, at that time, the Second Chamber of the Court determined that a document signed by a pregnant worker is insufficient to demonstrate that her resignation “was free and spontaneous.” And that it should not be taken into account as evidence “when the dismissal occurs during the period of pregnancy of the worker, as it constitutes an issue that requires judging from a gender perspective “.

In that case, the worker was in a vulnerable group, because she was a woman and pregnant. In this other, the worker was also, suffering sequelae of cardiovascular disease and need income.

When the complainants belong “to a suspicious category or vulnerable group, the evidentiary standard of the employer is raised, and it is necessary to demand more elements of evidence than mere resignation, since it is considered implausible, or not very credible”, that a woman in these conditions “decides to end the employment relationship and the prerogatives derived from it , when due to its state of vulnerability it requires them the most”.

Therefore, if the worker “alleges a unfair dismissal when she was ill, arguing, moreover, that said health condition interfered negatively with her performance, it is the duty of the authority to judge gender perspective, in the face of a possible act of discrimination on the part of the employer”, Judge María del Carmen Cordero sentenced.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.