The Superior Court of Justice considered it possible to extend the liability of worke
The case we are discussing in this opportunity is related to the dismissal, for disciplinary reasons, of an employee who left his workplace and went to a nearby bar, where he consumed alcohol and had a strong argument with a co-worker, whom he insulted and assaulted, causing him injuries.
After being dismissed, the employee filed a lawsuit against his former employer, and the court declared that the employee’s dismissal was justified and dismissed the lawsuit accordingly.
Against this judgment, the plaintiff filed the corresponding appeal before the higher court, the main arguments raised by the plaintiff to reverse the judgment of the lower court being that “the events that gave rise to the dismissal occurred in a bar, after lunch and therefore outside the time and place of work” and that ultimately what happened to the plaintiff had no relation to work, “not having the gravity and culpability necessary to agree to disciplinary dismissal“.
The Superior Court of Justice of Albacete (appeal 391/2023, dated June 22, 2023), hearing the case, begins its analysis by determining whether or not conduct committed outside the workplace and working hours can be grounds for disciplinary dismissal, pointing out in particular that it is “clear that the employee who is outside the place and time of work can commit acts that would be punishable if he transgresses the contractual good faith to cause damage to the company, if he thereby incurs in behaviors that have some kind of relevance and connection with the work activity“.
In view of the above, and of the background information available to it, the court determined that “it is clear that the conduct is related to the labor relationship when the aggression occurs to another guard of the same farm, after having had lunch on the farm itself, and in the presence of a third party, conditioning not only the relations between them but also the image of the company, especially when third parties were present“.
As a result of the above, the court concluded that “the facts reported, declared proven, reveal a conduct linked or knotted to the employment relationship, which breaks the rules of coexistence required, resulting, directly or indirectly, to the detriment of the company, so that the decision taken by the company to dismiss the worker, the court does not consider it disproportionate, extremes that determine the dismissal of the appeal and the confirmation of the appealed decision“.
Thus, for this case, the court considers that it is possible to extend the liability of the workers beyond the conducts they perform within their working day and workplace, when these are somehow linked to the employment relationship and with them an affectation is generated to their employer that breaks the rules of required coexistence and that directly or indirectly generates a damage to the company.
For more information on these topics, please contact our #azLabor group:
Jorge Arredondo | Partner | jarredondo@az.cl
Jocelyn Aros | Senior Associate | jaros@az.cl
Felipe Neira | Associate | fneira@az.cl
Palmira Valdivia | Associate | pvaldivia@az.cl
