The Bogota branch of the National Commission for Judicial Discipline decided to dismiss and disqualify a judge in the capital for 10 years for having committed acts of workplace harassment against one of the officials in his office, whom he allegedly pointed out on several occasions as not “measuring up” to carry out her duties.
(Read: Why would the labor reform generate more unemployment? Fenalco responds).
The case is that of the 50th Civil Municipal Judge of Bogotá, Dora Alejandra Valencia, who was denounced by the lawyer who was part of her office as a senior officer and who, from the very beginning, assures, he received unequal treatment and was prevented from properly taking office.
The court said that it was proven that the judge issued a personalized functions manual for that official, “in which threats were inserted, and she was even prohibited from being alone in court, behaviors that, without a doubt, had the objective of making the worker resign from the position”.
“Consistent with the above, the occurrence of the offense imputed to the investigated official is objectively appreciated,” explains the decision of the Chamber, which also recognized various problems in the work environment in court and lack of respect.
(In addition: Labor reform would put limits on contracts for the provision of services).
For her part, Judge Valencia defended herself by saying that he had had to call the lawyer’s attention for obvious deficiencies in her workthat this was the one who verbally attacked her and that if she was prevented from entering the office on occasions, it was because she was not properly possessed.
The Commission it did not distort the arguments about the inefficiency of the worker or the lack of knowledge of the elementary norms of law.
However, it was indicated that the day the lawyer arrived, “He warned her that if she did not measure up, she would rate her unsatisfactorily, without even knowing what the worker’s abilities were, a warning that she made effective, since in May 2018, approximately a month and a half after taking possession of the worker, before who had completed the probationary period, proceeded to rate it unsatisfactorily.”
He ruling explains that legally he could not make that decision. Consequently, the Commission reproached the judge for the threat of dismissal that was made from the beginning and that ended up being effective, which is why it results in harassment.
“Well, although at that time he did not try to get the worker to resign, he did proceed to remove her from the position, illegally, unaware that the Statutory Law of the Administration of Justice”, adds the ruling.
(Keep reading: Indefinite-term contracting, general rule of the labor reform).
“It is evident that the complaining employee was given a differentiated treatment, what is more, it was unusual, to say the least, that a person who passed all the stages of the competition to opt for a position, is forced to sign a commitment document , prior to her possession, when the very fact of having passed the contest and being on the list of eligible qualified her to opt for the position and take possession of it, without any type of conditioning, “adds the Bogotá Section of the Commission .
The entity said that it is clear that not in all cases the people who pass a merit contestthey are trained to carry out the position and that this is what happened here, since the lawyer had not held positions in the Judicial Branch and lacked experience.
BRIEFCASE
With information from EL TIEMPO*
