Post by account_disabled on Mar 12, 2024 0:19:40 GMT -5
Faced with the lower court ruling, the defendant employer filed an appeal, but the Superior Court of Justice (TSJ) of Madrid has rejected said appeal and confirmed the appealed ruling.
The TSJ has maintained the criteria maintained by the lower Email Data court. The dismissal letter alludes to the fact that the actor had a conversation with a person from the competition about work issues, but the wording of the letter itself does not specify the statements that the actor could have made in relation to his work at the employer or in relationship with his new superior, which prevents the Chamber from assessing whether they fall within what can be called “confidential information” .
Similarly, the dismissal letter alludes to the fact that when the meeting between the worker and other members of the audit took place, the actor did not reveal at any time, when specifically asked if he maintained contacts with competing companies, that he had had contact with his former supervisor and now employee of a competing company. In this sense, the TSJ does not question that the employee answered “no” to that question, but the truth is that he was asked if he had had a relationship with “competitors” and, in this regard, despite the fact that the proven relationship between the two men, if it began due to work dependence, it later became personal and friendly, "so since the question asked was not aimed at determining the link between the two (as natural persons), it cannot be considered that a breach of goodwill occurred. contractual faith when the actor denied any relationship with competing companies ,” the Court reasons.
Regarding the second accusation, it consisted of a serious failure to comply with the management of confidential information, through the removal of documents from the employer's corporate storage cloud to be located in the personal storage system. of the employee.
The TSJ has maintained the criteria maintained by the lower Email Data court. The dismissal letter alludes to the fact that the actor had a conversation with a person from the competition about work issues, but the wording of the letter itself does not specify the statements that the actor could have made in relation to his work at the employer or in relationship with his new superior, which prevents the Chamber from assessing whether they fall within what can be called “confidential information” .
Similarly, the dismissal letter alludes to the fact that when the meeting between the worker and other members of the audit took place, the actor did not reveal at any time, when specifically asked if he maintained contacts with competing companies, that he had had contact with his former supervisor and now employee of a competing company. In this sense, the TSJ does not question that the employee answered “no” to that question, but the truth is that he was asked if he had had a relationship with “competitors” and, in this regard, despite the fact that the proven relationship between the two men, if it began due to work dependence, it later became personal and friendly, "so since the question asked was not aimed at determining the link between the two (as natural persons), it cannot be considered that a breach of goodwill occurred. contractual faith when the actor denied any relationship with competing companies ,” the Court reasons.
Regarding the second accusation, it consisted of a serious failure to comply with the management of confidential information, through the removal of documents from the employer's corporate storage cloud to be located in the personal storage system. of the employee.