The Court of Appeal of Santiago confirmed the judgment accepting the claim for unfair dismissal and recovery of social benefits for an intercity bus assistant dismissed by Empresa de Transportes Rurales SpA (Turbus).
From the judgment it appears that, as can be seen from the arbitration, this condition does not exist in the first case, since the candidate confines herself to disagreeing with the judgment and criticizing her own appreciation of the evidence presented to formulate the evaluative reason it puts forward. The basic judge in the thirteenth and fourth recitals in which the court reasons to understand that the employer has not proven on record the first circumstance that he attributes to the plaintiff in the letter of dismissal, This is to allow the entry of 8 foreigners without documents and if it is an unauthorized location.
The decision adds that the thirteenth ground just cited assesses the evidence for these purposes and points out: “It should be borne in mind that the plaintiff acknowledges in his complaint that only three passengers boarded and that the defendant did not provide any information made any evidence. who reliably confirmed that 8 “approximate” passengers boarded the bus, as stated in the letter: It must be added that in the photo that was provided – and which, as stated, was not recognized and only briefly mentioned one Witness – 5 people can be seen. , without ruling out that one or more are part of the crew.
He added that the actor stated that the three passengers who were on board were traveling to Tocopilla, a distance of 88 km. It is impossible that passengers were taken without documents or a health pass, let alone in violation of the company’s policies, all of which the defendant has not discredited. Likewise, it should be taken into account that the actor provided three documents called “Information on hygiene measures and documentation to be requested from the passenger”, delivered by the rural transport company Tur Bus Limitada, and “Update of internal Covid procedures”, delivered by the rural transport company Tur Bus Limitada and Information Control documentation for passengers, all valid from November 1st, proving that for trips of up to 200 km, the responsibility for requesting the documentation lies with the driver and not the assistant , a fact that is not even mentioned in the letter and that gives plausibility to the actor’s reasons.
The above justification is continued in the fourth recital as follows: “It is clear from the foregoing that the employer has not proven on record the first circumstance that it attributes to the actor and which allows the accommodation of 8 people.” Undocumented foreigners, and if it is an unauthorized location, not only is it not the responsibility of the assistant to stop the vehicle, but it is also not serious enough to constitute a serious breach of contractual obligations.”
For the court of second instance, as can be seen, the sentencing representative makes use of his exclusive power to assess evidence, a power that the law does not grant to the litigant, which is why the above-mentioned first assumption is not fulfilled in this case.
The judgment comes to the conclusion that the appeal does not satisfy the second requirement either, since it only refers generally to the fact that the sentence violates the rules of well-founded criticism, in particular the rules of logic, although it alludes to Dem Following the logical principle of sufficient reason, it does this superficially, without going beyond its definition to explain how this violation in the judgment comes about.