The Social Court No. 1 of Murcia described how unfounded the dismissal of a lawyer who, after eight years of service in the same law firm, was terminated verbally by the managing partner of the company without receiving any explanation.
Phrase, November 4, 2022shows that we are faced with employment relationship of a special naturesince the jurist performed services on behalf and order of the head of the office.
The case
The jurist has been providing his services as a trainee lawyer in a firm located in Murcia, very close to the City of Justice, since August 2013.
In late April 2021, when no one else was in the office, the managing partner of the firm communicated verbally the cessation of his professional activity to the lawyer.
There is documentary evidence that the lawyer acted in the courts of Murcia and Orihuela to replace the managing partner of the company On most occasions. Likewise, the lawyer also assumed the technical direction of problems with family and friends of the office holder.
As a result of the filing, the affected jurist stood up in court requesting that the nullity of dismissal for violation of fundamental rights, with an additional compensation of 42,000 euros, or declared on a subsidiary basis unfounded.
For his part, the owner of the firm defended that the plaintiff was a simple collaborator in his office with which he had an agreement to share a certain percentage per case.
work relationship
The Magistrate-Judge of the Social Court n.1 of Murcia has no doubts: we are faced with work relationship of Royal Decree 1331/2006, of November 17, which regulates the employment relationship of a special nature of lawyers who provide services in individual or collective law firms, since the lawyer “has provided services By account and order of the employer, owner of the law firm, from the beginning of the employment relationship until dismissal”.
The Judge notes that the managing shareholder has imposed the working day to the plaintiff, he paid a salary Periodically, he organized the business he had to do and how to do it. For example, the lawyer I didn’t even have freedom decide whether to negotiate an agreement, given that everything passed through the owner of the office.
Similarly, point to the 10-page sentence that it is not true that the lawyer dealt with private affairs from the office, since he could only handle cases like the other members of the firm. Naturally, once brought to the office, these matters belonged to the company as a whole.
The Palace of Justice of Murcia. (Photo: Nacho Garcia/AGM)
Along the same lines, the Magistrate-Court confirms that, in the present case, the notes of art dependency and alienation Characteristics of any employment relationship:
On the one hand, in matters of alienation, the Judge underlines that the fruits of the work carried out by the lawyer “are incorporated directly into the assets of the employer”. Likewise, the actordoes not assume the business risk for the result of the service” and, in carrying out his work, the worker “makes use of the equipment, tools, materials and tools that the company makes available to him”.
Likewise, the plaintiff “does not intervene in commercial relations, does not fix prices, does not select customers, limiting himself to contributing his own personal work as part of the normal activity carried out by the company”. In short, the lawyer provides his services in a “exclusive, continuous and prolonged” for the managing shareholder, and in the manner and under the conditions established by the latter.
“The lawyer was subject to a program”
Secondly, as for addictionthe Court draws attention to the fact that the lawyer carries out his activity “in the place chosen by the company, under orders and instructions of the employer and within the organization and management of the company”. Likewise, the ruling reflects that his work is supervised by the firm’s managing partner, who not only warns him of possible shortcomings, but also gives him guidelines and instructions.
Similarly, the recent ruling underlines that the worker usually communicates what is possible to the founder of the company incidences who might show up for work.
Unfair dismissal
With regard to the request for dismissal with violation of fundamental rights and further compensation of 42,000 euros, the Court notes that the worker has not demonstrated that he has suffered harassment at work and mobbing. “Everything is generality, vagueness, data is missingfrom certain situations (…) and entrepreneurial behavior such as the one accused cannot be extracted from there to condemn it as a violation of fundamental rights”, says the Magistrate-Judgment.
Thus, the Court ends up partially evaluating the statement of the jurist and declares unfounded The dismissal. Furthermore, the partner-director of the firm must pay the plaintiff the amount of 5,859.48 euros in the concept of salary, plus 10% default interest from each installment.
