The Santiago Court of Appeals confirmed the sentence for $356 million to the Las Condes Clinic for the dismissal of 36 workers during the pandemic, who had to carry out their jobs by telecommuting for being a population at risk.
The court ruled in favor of the employees, establishing that the grounds filed by the clinic were not fulfilled, indicating that “so that the wrong legal qualification of the facts or the violation of the law with substantial influence on the device of the ruling can prosper, the The appellant must respect -respectively- the factual conclusions or, as the case may be, the facts that have been considered established, and that flow from the contested judgment,” he said. The Third.
You may also like:
labor complaint
The labor complaint began in May 2020, when due to the unjustified dismissal of employees, the union filed the complaint as a measure to protect workers during the pandemic and which added the authorization of isolation in their homes of employees with a higher risk of contagion. , corresponding to pregnant women, adults over 60 years of age, mothers of children under 10 years of age and the chronically ill.
The measure was agreed for the duration of the State of Exception, which was believed to be short-lived, but the date was extended as infections continued to grow.
Faced with this scenario, CLC decided in September 2020 to lay off approximately 70 people who performed telework. The fact led to six lawsuits.
Appeal of inapplicability
Las Condes Clinic filed a request for inapplicability before the Constitutional Court on March 25, which leaves the ruling of the Court of Appeals suspended.
This measure seeks to avoid losing contracts with the State in two years, since the Public Procurement Law indicates that any employer who has been convicted of anti-union practices or violation of the fundamental rights of workers is excluded.
“The sanction established, and depending on the interpretation that may be given to it, risks enormous consequences for the health of the population, much greater than those foreseen by the legislator when dictating the contested precepts,” the company said.
