Post by account_disabled on Mar 12, 2024 0:19:34 GMT -5
The defendant company gave the plaintiff an iPhone mobile phone, an iPad Pro and a laptop computer for his work. When the company began an investigation through an audit, he asked the plaintiff if he had maintained contact with competing companies, to which the plaintiff replied that he had not .
Once the internal audit report was completed, a meeting Email Data was held in which the worker, the company's Legal Director, a company lawyer, a computer scientist and, remotely, staff from the external company that had carried out the audit were present. . In that meeting, the plaintiff was told, among other things, that irregular use of personal clouds had been detected and he was asked about a former superior of his who served in the defendant company but who now worked for a competing company, to which the actor indicated that he had a personal relationship with him .
In addition, the actor voluntarily provided the company with the cloud access credentials of his private Google Drive account, in order to verify the existence of documents owned by the employer related to his professional activity. The company found 6 documents stored in the worker's private cloud , in the “Share with me” section.
Likewise, WhatsApp messages were found exchanged from the actor's mobile phone with two subjects, one of them was the worker's former superior, who now provided services for a competing company and about whom the actor had already been asked about the relationship they had. ; The other subject was a person linked to a company that provides services for the employer.
The company proceeded to disciplinaryly dismiss the worker, alleging in the dismissal communication that he had breached the confidentiality agreement and, therefore, committed breach of contractual good faith and abuse of trust .
The actor sued the company for dismissal with violation of fundamental rights and the Social Court No. 1 of Madrid partially upheld the claim, classifying as inadmissible the disciplinary dismissal agreed by the company by concluding that there was no action involving abuse trust nor in violation of contractual good faith , which are the infractions contained in the dismissal letter. The employer was sentenced to choose between reinstatement and payment of the wages not received since the moment of dismissal or, on the contrary, to pay the plaintiff compensation of 112,578 euros.
Once the internal audit report was completed, a meeting Email Data was held in which the worker, the company's Legal Director, a company lawyer, a computer scientist and, remotely, staff from the external company that had carried out the audit were present. . In that meeting, the plaintiff was told, among other things, that irregular use of personal clouds had been detected and he was asked about a former superior of his who served in the defendant company but who now worked for a competing company, to which the actor indicated that he had a personal relationship with him .
In addition, the actor voluntarily provided the company with the cloud access credentials of his private Google Drive account, in order to verify the existence of documents owned by the employer related to his professional activity. The company found 6 documents stored in the worker's private cloud , in the “Share with me” section.
Likewise, WhatsApp messages were found exchanged from the actor's mobile phone with two subjects, one of them was the worker's former superior, who now provided services for a competing company and about whom the actor had already been asked about the relationship they had. ; The other subject was a person linked to a company that provides services for the employer.
The company proceeded to disciplinaryly dismiss the worker, alleging in the dismissal communication that he had breached the confidentiality agreement and, therefore, committed breach of contractual good faith and abuse of trust .
The actor sued the company for dismissal with violation of fundamental rights and the Social Court No. 1 of Madrid partially upheld the claim, classifying as inadmissible the disciplinary dismissal agreed by the company by concluding that there was no action involving abuse trust nor in violation of contractual good faith , which are the infractions contained in the dismissal letter. The employer was sentenced to choose between reinstatement and payment of the wages not received since the moment of dismissal or, on the contrary, to pay the plaintiff compensation of 112,578 euros.