Post by account_disabled on Mar 5, 2024 3:28:52 GMT
Against the previous ruling, the plaintiff filed an appeal, which has been rejected by the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid, this court confirming what was found by the judge, that is, the plaintiff's status as a worker cannot be declared when it understands that the fact of accessing the company's management software does not necessarily imply that the relationship is an employment one .
The Chamber considers that the factual account of the contested ruling is firm, since it does not appear as proven Fax Lists that at the time the plaintiff ceased providing services she lived with her husband , which predictably explains that the Court of the Social does not apply the presumption of non-employment of art. 1.3.e) of the Workers' Statute that excludes family work from the workplace, unless proven otherwise.
Likewise, the court clarifies that to determine the existence of an employment relationship, such as the one alleged by the plaintiff, it is not enough to personally perform a service and its remuneration by the entity for which it is provided, but it is necessary that The essential elements of the employment contract are present , that is, that the company endorses the results and results of the work and that the activity is carried out integrated into its governing circle. “Well, in the list of services submitted to the consideration of the Chamber, none of the notes that characterize the employment relationship were present .”
With regard to unrelated property , the plaintiff and her husband are married in community property and are the only partners of the commercial lawsuit, making common the results that it obtains, on account of which they received a similar monthly amount of around of 3,000 euros which, "as the judge highlights, was higher than the salary received by the Section Manager and the Head of Administration, which confirms that this payment responded to participation in the results and that the now appellant carried out her activity in her for her own benefit and that of her husband, and not on behalf of others ,” the ruling states.
And in the same way, the relationship analyzed was not accompanied by the note of dependency in the way of carrying out the work undertaken , of which there is no sign, there being solid indications that the plaintiff carried out the administrative tasks with absolute autonomy, freedom and independence. , not being incorporated into the scope of organization and management of the company; On the one hand, she was free to choose the time she dedicated to carrying out the aforementioned tasks, which in recent years she carried out from her home, without any external control, and, on the other, she chose vacations with her husband.
The Chamber considers that the factual account of the contested ruling is firm, since it does not appear as proven Fax Lists that at the time the plaintiff ceased providing services she lived with her husband , which predictably explains that the Court of the Social does not apply the presumption of non-employment of art. 1.3.e) of the Workers' Statute that excludes family work from the workplace, unless proven otherwise.
Likewise, the court clarifies that to determine the existence of an employment relationship, such as the one alleged by the plaintiff, it is not enough to personally perform a service and its remuneration by the entity for which it is provided, but it is necessary that The essential elements of the employment contract are present , that is, that the company endorses the results and results of the work and that the activity is carried out integrated into its governing circle. “Well, in the list of services submitted to the consideration of the Chamber, none of the notes that characterize the employment relationship were present .”
With regard to unrelated property , the plaintiff and her husband are married in community property and are the only partners of the commercial lawsuit, making common the results that it obtains, on account of which they received a similar monthly amount of around of 3,000 euros which, "as the judge highlights, was higher than the salary received by the Section Manager and the Head of Administration, which confirms that this payment responded to participation in the results and that the now appellant carried out her activity in her for her own benefit and that of her husband, and not on behalf of others ,” the ruling states.
And in the same way, the relationship analyzed was not accompanied by the note of dependency in the way of carrying out the work undertaken , of which there is no sign, there being solid indications that the plaintiff carried out the administrative tasks with absolute autonomy, freedom and independence. , not being incorporated into the scope of organization and management of the company; On the one hand, she was free to choose the time she dedicated to carrying out the aforementioned tasks, which in recent years she carried out from her home, without any external control, and, on the other, she chose vacations with her husband.