The Warning Doesn’t Betray: A Case of Anti-Union Dismissal 

The company objected and said it was unaware that the dismissed employees were in the process of unionizing. For this reason, the company maintained, at no time was it possible to prove that the closure of the Call Center was due to anti-union policies; On the contrary , always according to the company,  the closure was due to reasons of technological connectivity and low staff productivity.

The Administrative Dispute Tribunal (“the ATT”) sided with the dismissed civil servants. In the opinion of the latter, the file had duly “established that the Call Center exerted pressure and threats of dismissal and closure of the company to its workers”.  In the Court’s view, it is implausible that the company was not aware that it intended to form a trade union when the decision to close it was taken. The formation of a union , the ruling continued, does not happen overnight (except when the company has 93 workers on the payroll); and if the closure of the enterprise was almost simultaneous with the formal notification of the establishment of the union, it is reasonable to infer that that closure was motivated by the latter.

Along the same lines, the High Court expressed that there are facts that are difficult to prove, either because of the situations involved, because of the subjects involved or because of the combination of both elements. These include situations of anti-union practices. With this precision, considering the accumulation of evidence produced -and also considering the lack of evidence produced by the plaintiff-, the TCA concluded that the facts imputed to the Call Center were duly proven.

This communication is for information purposes only. It cannot and should not be understood as legal advice from this firm. Bergstein has a team of specialists who can be contacted to assist you in this matter. For any questions regarding this material, please contact Dr. Rodrigo Felló (rfello@bergsteinlaw.com) and/or Dr. Mariana Pisón ([email protected]).