Post by account_disabled on Mar 16, 2024 5:38:26 GMT 2
The last 16 of October FIDE held the session titled “Changes in the Regulatory Law of Social Jurisdiction”, framed in the Labor News Forum, moderate by Jesus Rafael Mercader Uguina, Professor of Labor and Social Security Law at the Carlos III y of Madrid and Counsel of Uría Menéndez, and whose speaker was Ricardo Bodas Martin, Emeritus Judge of the Fourth Chamber of the Supreme Court and Academic Advisor of Fide. This session aimed to analyze the content of RDL 5/2023 of June 28, which has transposed into the legal system Directive 2019/1158 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of June 20, the conciliation of professional life and family of workers, parents and caregivers. Thus, article 4.2.c of the ET is modified, including the right of workers not to be discriminated against for the exercise of conciliation or co-responsibility rights. This is specified in articles 34 and 37 of the ET, including the right of workers to request adaptations to the duration and distribution of the day, referring to article 139 of the LRJS for the exercise of said rights and the resolution of discrepancies.
Drived from it. This procedure establishes a period of 20 business days from the business notification for the filing of the written claim. The action for damages caused to the worker may be aculated by those derived exclusively from the of the right or the delay. It will be if there are solid cirstances or if there is no evidence of discrimination. The possibility of appeal will depend on the aculation of the claim for damages to the demand for time adjustment and that it exceeds the corresponding amount for the appeal. In the session, the new balance of evidentiary burdens was analyzed BYB Directory in detail. The plaintiffs must prove that reasonable requirements and indications of unfavorable treatment are present. The employer may deny the measure when these requirements are not met, when compliance is impossible for reasons, when it cannot be granted for reasons of occupational risk prevention or when the measure is intended to be used abusively. Negotiation is possible in good faith, always taking into account the predominance of the best interests of the minor.
Articles 108.2 and 122 of the LRJS are also modified to incorporate the exercise of conciliation rights as a cause for nullity of dismissal and contractual termination for objective reasons. In this way, if the requirements for the exercise of the right are proven and the cause for dismissal is not proven or does not exist, it will be declared null and void. On the contrary, the origin will be declared when the cause for dismissal is proven, sufficiently proving that said cause necessarily implies the termination of the worker's contract. One of the most complex issues to be addressed in the session and that has aroused the greatest interest is that a generalization of claims in this matter is expected, potentially increasing the volume of litigation in the social jurisdiction, which may harm the right to judicial protection.
Drived from it. This procedure establishes a period of 20 business days from the business notification for the filing of the written claim. The action for damages caused to the worker may be aculated by those derived exclusively from the of the right or the delay. It will be if there are solid cirstances or if there is no evidence of discrimination. The possibility of appeal will depend on the aculation of the claim for damages to the demand for time adjustment and that it exceeds the corresponding amount for the appeal. In the session, the new balance of evidentiary burdens was analyzed BYB Directory in detail. The plaintiffs must prove that reasonable requirements and indications of unfavorable treatment are present. The employer may deny the measure when these requirements are not met, when compliance is impossible for reasons, when it cannot be granted for reasons of occupational risk prevention or when the measure is intended to be used abusively. Negotiation is possible in good faith, always taking into account the predominance of the best interests of the minor.
Articles 108.2 and 122 of the LRJS are also modified to incorporate the exercise of conciliation rights as a cause for nullity of dismissal and contractual termination for objective reasons. In this way, if the requirements for the exercise of the right are proven and the cause for dismissal is not proven or does not exist, it will be declared null and void. On the contrary, the origin will be declared when the cause for dismissal is proven, sufficiently proving that said cause necessarily implies the termination of the worker's contract. One of the most complex issues to be addressed in the session and that has aroused the greatest interest is that a generalization of claims in this matter is expected, potentially increasing the volume of litigation in the social jurisdiction, which may harm the right to judicial protection.