The head of the Labour Court No. 6 Valencia has ordered a company to reinstate a fired worker to that when I was pregnant and to pay her 120,000 euros. This followed readmit dismissed when a first time for having the part-time to care for their children, as recorded in the statement.
On June 2, 2009, when he was enjoying a day reduced from 33% to care for youngest child, was served a letter of dismissal, citing economic reasons that forced the company to the amortization of office work. The agency did not notice one month in advance, nor paid the full amount within 20 days of compensation.
The woman filed a lawsuit against the dismissal, and the owner of the Labour Court No. 7 of Valencia issued a ruling, dated March 29, 2010, which recognized the invalidity of the dismissal conducted by the company . The agency filed an appealed against that decision.
Meanwhile, the company issued an burofax, dated April 28, 2010, which was reinstated in her job, with date of incorporation on May 1, but had to start work on 3, first business day.
She then joined her job, and the next day, by letter dated May 4, he was notified, through a notarized request, dismissal, and again claimed economic reasons.
At this point, the woman was 28 weeks pregnant, which was known by the company, and I knew from the day they held the first hearing of the trial court for dismissal in the number 7, since it had to be suspended by fading of women, and credited his state.
On June 2, 2009, when he was enjoying a day reduced from 33% to care for youngest child, was served a letter of dismissal, citing economic reasons that forced the company to the amortization of office work. The agency did not notice one month in advance, nor paid the full amount within 20 days of compensation.
The woman filed a lawsuit against the dismissal, and the owner of the Labour Court No. 7 of Valencia issued a ruling, dated March 29, 2010, which recognized the invalidity of the dismissal conducted by the company . The agency filed an appealed against that decision.
Meanwhile, the company issued an burofax, dated April 28, 2010, which was reinstated in her job, with date of incorporation on May 1, but had to start work on 3, first business day.
She then joined her job, and the next day, by letter dated May 4, he was notified, through a notarized request, dismissal, and again claimed economic reasons.
At this point, the woman was 28 weeks pregnant, which was known by the company, and I knew from the day they held the first hearing of the trial court for dismissal in the number 7, since it had to be suspended by fading of women, and credited his state.
0 comments:
Post a Comment