The Constitutional court urged the Supreme Court of Justice to change its precedent and modify its jurisprudential procedure, that is, the rules that it has been applying in the claims and protections related to the jurisdiction of reinforced job stability. The purpose of the order is for the highest authority of the judicial branch to apply the doctrine that the constitutional court has been implementing since 2017..
“Urge the Supreme Court of Justice, the Labor Cassation Chamber and its decongestion chambers to modify their precedent in relation to the scope and content of the fundamental right to reinforced job stability, in accordance with what is stated in the constitutional precedent“warns a ruling that overturned a Supreme Court decision that misapplied precedent.
(We recommend: With AI, what will jobs be like in the future? This is what the co-founder of LinkedIn says).
The reinforced employment stability protection is one that protects workers in a special way in the event of dismissal, in cases where there is evidence of a decrease in their work capacity. This figure was analyzed by the judges in the claims of dismissed workers when they seek reinstatement or compensation..
Constitutional court
(Also: Does yours do it? The main mistake that bosses make in companies).
The high court questioned the Supreme Court’s request that a citizen prove that she had lost more than 15% of her work capacity at the time of her dismissal. The ruling, with Judge Vladimir Fernandez as rapporteur, warns that this is not the only requirement to activate the jurisdiction.
“The Plenary Chamber notes that, despite the existence of a peaceful and uniform constitutional precedent that recognizes the fundamental right to reinforced job stability for people in a situation of manifest weakness due to their health condition, the Labor Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice and its decongestion chambers have been requiring the existence of a physical, mental, intellectual or sensorial deficiency in the medium and long term, instead of verifying whether at the time of dismissal the worker was in a health condition that prevented or substantially hindered the performance of his or her activities. For this reason, it is necessary to urge them to modify this position and adapt it to the constitutional precedent.“, the decision says.
(You can read: Who have more mental dexterity: those who get up early or those who work at night?).
The Constitutional Court’s position benefits workers who suffer from health conditions related to their work and who They do not have certificates of moderate, severe or profound decrease in work capacity, that is, equivalent to or greater than 15%.
Supreme Court of Justice
“In application of the constitutional precedent set in judgments SU-049 of 2017 and SU-087 of 2022, for the purposes of determining whether the worker is entitled to reinforced job stability, it is not decisive to establish the type of limitation and the degree or level thereof, but rather it requires proof of an affectation to the health that prevents or significantly hinders the normal development of the worker’s activities, the employer’s prior knowledge of this situation and the termination of the employment relationship without justification.“, the ruling says.
BRIEFCASE
*With information from EL TIEMPO – JUSTICE
Add Comment