This is a pronouncement that takes into consideration the external economic factors to which a business organization was exposed.
On July 24, 2023, the Court of Appeals of San Miguel accepted an appeal for annulment filed by a company against the judgment of first instance, which had declared the dismissal of an employee unjustified, sentencing the company to a surcharge of 30% on severance indemnities and the refund of the AFC.
In effect, the court of first instance had accepted the claim filed by the dismissed worker on the grounds of the company’s needs, considering that his dismissal did not comply with the explanations given by the employer in the respective letter.
As a result of the above, it was indicated that the company did not justify the adoption of measures with respect to material resources, aimed at alleviating the bad situation of the employer company.
In its appeal for annulment, the company indicated that the requirement to demonstrate that all other measures were adopted to avoid the dismissals goes beyond the requirements of the norm, since the jurisprudence contemplates the configuration of the cause of the needs of the company to the concurrence of three requirements:
- That the need is based on a technical or economic assumption.
- It must be of an objective nature.
- That there is a causal relationship between this and the necessary separation of one or more workers.
In the letter of dismissal, the company indicated that it had experienced an increase in transportation costs, an increase in the variation in the U.F. due to inflation and a decrease in sales. Thus, in order to face these externalities, the company rationalized its human and material resources.
Despite the above, the court of first instance understands that the employer did not demonstrate that it had adopted all the measures tending to alleviate the company’s situation and overcome the bad moment, except for the reduction of personnel, so that the dismissal lacks justification, so that it accepts the claim in all its parts.
The Court of Appeals of San Miguel, on the other hand, ruled that “from the documents referred to in the previous reason, it is clear that they contain relevant information regarding the adoption of economic measures of a material nature adopted by the defendant company“.
The Court of San Miguel continues, “However, contrary to the standard that configures the duty of substantiation of the judgments that was set forth above, the judge did not make an analysis of them, nor of their evidentiary merit, despite which he concludes that the burden of proving the measures in the area of material resources by the employer was not met“.
Finally, in the replacement judgment, the court determined that “from the foregoing, it is considered proven that the defendant implemented measures of various kinds aimed at making the company more efficient, in view of the economic situation in which it was immersed“, ultimately declaring the dismissal as justified.
This is an interesting pronouncement that takes into consideration the external economic factors to which a business organization was exposed, in this case, an increase in transportation costs, an increase in the variation in the U.F. and the decrease in sales, in order to understand that the cause of the company’s needs was established.
For more information on these topics, please contact our #azLabor group:
Jorge Arredondo | Partner | jarredondo@az.cl
Jocelyn Aros | Senior Associate | jaros@az.cl
Felipe Neira | Associate | fneira@az.cl
