The ruling highlights the worker's failure to comply with his contractual obligations and violation of the principle of good faith that governs labor relations.

Appeal No. 1112/2024 is resolved, against the judgment issued by the Social Court No. 3 of Ciudad Real (orders No. 655/2023).

The worker provided services as a stretcher bearer in an ICU ambulance, with an indefinite contract and a seniority of January 1, 2009. On May 13, 2020, he requested a reduction of working hours to 75% for legal guardian to take care of their child under 12 years of age, Jacob , and his wife, who had a degree of disability of 36%. The company accepted this reduction, which began on June 1, 2020, and was tacitly extended at the worker's request until January 31, 2023. However, in the extension request of January 15, 2023, he did not mention the care of his wife, Crescencia.

In April 2023, the department of Human Resources asked the worker for the family book and the minor's ID.. After several exchanges of emails, in May the worker sent the required documentation, but the data provided did not match that of the application. Instead, he presented the family book of his current partner, which included her children, without any information appearing about Jacobo's mother.

He October 19, 2021, an investigative court issued a protection order in favor of Crescencia, granting him custody of Jacobo. Since that date,the worker was not responsible for his son. In April 2022, a visitation regime was established that allowed him to see Jacobo one weekday in the afternoon and one day on the weekend at a Family Meeting Point. The worker did not inform the company about this change in his family situation.

He May 4, 2023, the company notified the worker that he had to immediately return to his job. Ignoring this communication, the worker organized changes in his shifts with colleagues so as not to leave his position unattended and continued to ask the company for clarifications about his employment situation.

He June 14, 2023, the company sent him a burofax informing him of the opening of a disciplinary file for two reasons: the lack of reinstatement to his job and the NON-presentation of the minor's ID and the family book that justified his reduction in hours. The company also warned him about possible bad faith, by trying to confuse the company with the documentation provided, since it did not prove the situation that justified his right to family and work conciliation. He was granted a period of 10 days to present his allegations, but they were presented after the deadline, one day after his dismissal.

The company, upon reviewing the worker's time registration system, verified that there were no time records during the years 2022 and 2023. In addition, it was discovered that the worker combined his work with the defendant company with another job as a nurse and that he was registered as self-employed, being the administrator of a clinic. Therefore, he was in a situation of multiple employment and multiple activity.

He June 27, 2023, the company notified the employee of his dismissal by burofax, based on the offenses alleged in the sanctioning file: missing work for more than two consecutive days and four alternate days without justified cause; continued and persistent disobedience demonstrated; indiscipline and disobedience; violation of good faith and abuse of trust.

In the writing of demand, the annulment of the dismissal was requested or, in a subsidiary manner, the declaration of its inadmissibility, basing said request on various grounds for nullity.: The first, objective cause for care of a minor; the second, for violation of the right to effective judicial protection, aspect guarantee of indemnity and finally violation of the right to freedom of association for belonging to a union and exercising their rights through it before being dismissed. The defendant company and the Health Service of Castilla-La Mancha appear at the trial, with the Public Prosecutor's Office not appearing. The dismissal in the instance is declared admissible, partially upholding the claim in terms of the amounts recognized by the company, which had to be paid jointly by the defendant companies.

The plaintiff filed an appeal, arguing two reasons, the first, the review of the proven facts and the second, to understand that the worker had been defenseless when facts not mentioned in the dismissal letter were introduced, violating arts. 14 and 24 of the Constitution, art. 37.6 of the ET and art. 40 of the C. National Collective for the transport of the sick and injured by ambulance.

He TSJ after examining the reasons for the appeal, concluded that the plaintiff's claims were unfounded. Regarding the review of the facts, he argued that certain facts could not be eliminated from the proven facts, since they were relevant to the qualification of dismissal. These facts, included in the dismissal letter, validated the decision made by the company in compliance with the proportionality criteria. Furthermore, the worker did not comply with the company's reinstatement orders, incurring unjustified abandonment of work. The alleged helplessness was baseless, since the worker had had the opportunity to present allegations and defend his rights when he was notified of the sanction.

The allegations of violation of fundamental rights and discrimination were dismissed, since the dismissal was based on proven objective reasons and not on the reduction of the worker's working hours. Finally, the claim for amount was also rejected, as insufficient evidence was presented to modify the amount recognized by the ruling.The Chamber confirmed the lower court ruling and dismissed the appeal, indicating that a cassation appeal could be filed against said resolution for the unification of doctrine..