Moved Permanently

The document has moved here.

Free route to the check with the indemnification
The Supreme Court revokes the sentence dictated by the TSJ of Aragon and declares that to pay the indemnification by means of a check it is valid so that procedure wages do not yield. THE CASE: A company gave to the worker the dismissal letter recognizing its inappropriateness and came to pay in the same act the indemnification to him by dismissal in a bank check. The Supreme Court revokes the sentence dictated by the TSJ of Aragon and declares that to pay the indemnification by means of a check it is valid so that procedure wages do not yield. THE RESOLUTION: The Statute of the Workers arranges that wages of procedure in the dismissal will not be devengarán, when the industralist recognizes the inappropriateness of the same and offers to the worker the legally settled down indemnification (45 days per year on watch), depositing it in the Court of the Social thing and informing it of this one. WITHOUT JUDICIAL CONSIGMENT In the case analyzed by the sentence that now we commented, the company communicated to the worker its dismissal arguing that did not need more its services and recognizing in the same writing the inappropriateness of this dismissal. In the same act, the company gave to the worker a bank check by the amount of the indemnification. Interposed demand by dismissal on the part of the worker, the Court of the Social thing, considering the demand, it declared the inappropriateness of the dismissal and condemned to the company to that, to its election, to re-admit to the worker in its job or would pay the indemnification to him by dismissal more, in both cases, the procedure wages from the date of the dismissal to the one of notification of the sentence. Later, the TSJ of Aragon, rejected the resource interposed by the company and confirmed the sentence dictated by the Court of the Social thing. Both sentences considered that the worker had right to receive the procedure wages since the industralist did not use the unique one half legally settled down so that the same did not exist: the judicial consigment of the indemnification within the term of 48 hours. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court, in dictated sentence the 6 of March of 2008 in unification of doctrine, considers that the installment of the indemnification by dismissal by means of bank check delivery, is valid means so that procedure wages do not yield since in this case, a direct payment exists in which the offered amount happens to comprise of the patrimony of the worker. The High Court determines that he is an alternative assumption to the established one in the norm but that he fulfills his same purpose, he distinguishes and it of the assumption of the carried out banking transference in the account of the worker, who, in agreement settled down the same Court in his sentence of 21 of March of 2006, it is not means valid to avoid the procedure wages since he does not guarantee the fulfillment of the company with the certainty of his date and the concession to the worker of the options to accept or to reject the supply and to maintain or not it indemnification. In the assumption analyzed by the Supreme Court, the dismissed worker had signed the settlement, although this one data by itself, does not seem to be the determining element of the failure of the sentence, since in the used sentence as of resistance in the annulment resource, whose doctrine is considered the correct one by the Supreme one, the worker had accepted the check but at the same time had briefed in the dismissal letter that reserved the right to undertake the opportune legal actions. (The extracted News of the Vanguard)
 
[Back]
Home Sitemap Contact us

Friendly site that we think is very safe:

previews.japan-car.co.uk , krakow hostel , moto.motors-blog.co.uk , www.world-auto.co.uk , Car credit , Top car