Social Court number 3 of Seville declared the annulment of the dismissal of a Canal Sur worker and ordered the company to reinstate him and pay him 25,000 euros in compensation for moral damage. This is Ricardo Santos, member of Podemos in Seville and having “intense union activity” within the company, according to the judgment, which considers that the dismissal of November 2020, carried out during his trial period, was “manifestly unconstitutional”.
The judgment, which confirms the worker’s request, indicates that from the evidence carried out, it is deduced that the decision to terminate the contract came from the one who was then responsible for the news program, Álvaro Zancajo, who would leave the channel before the end of 2020 after having held for almost a year a position in which he received numerous complaints of manipulation filed by workers, unions, organizations and associations. In May 2022, Zancajo signed for Vox as director of Macarena Olona in anticipation of the Andalusian elections of June 19, and had been director of information of Antena 3 (until July 2016) and director of Canal 24 Horas of TVE (from December 2016 to September 2018).
The worker, for his part, from Podemos Sevilla participated in various organizations such as the Círculo de Triana in 2015 and was responsible to the Central Electoral Commission during the European elections. He was also hired by the Andalusian Communication Commission to carry out audiovisual tasks in the electoral campaigns of Podemos in the 2015 regional elections and the general elections of June 26, 2016. At the local level he was the founder of the municipal citizen candidacy . He participated in Seville in the 2015 municipal elections and was responsible for the political analysis sector of the Citizen Council of Seville between 2018 and 2020, which he combined with communication tasks for the electoral coalition Adelante Seville facing the municipal elections of 2019.
The company denied any discrimination
Although the lawsuit was not directed against Zancajo, who is currently on the RTVA board of directors at the suggestion of Vox, this “does not exonerate RTVA from its responsibilities because, even if it can be argued that the decision was suggested, he urged or even imposed by Mr. Zancajo, it was his governing bodies who adopted it. “Two leaders of RTVA recognize that Mr. Zancajo was at the origin of the decision adopted,” the judgment says in one of its passages, explaining the legal bases.
The company denied during the September 6 trial the existence of any type of discrimination, indicating that the plaintiff benefited from authorization to participate in an electoral campaign and that after the contested dismissal he was rehired, in fact up to four times between 2022 and 2024. Currently he works as a cameraman in Malaga part-time with replacement from August 1, 2024 to October 11, 2026. In fact, Martín Santos asked Canal Sur in May 2009 for a 15-day authorization to participate in the European election campaign, as he was a candidate on the Izquierda Anticapitalista-Revolta Global list, to which the company agreed.
RTVA sources consulted by this newspaper on the subject of the sentence indicate that they will not comment on it nor if they will present an appeal to the Social Chamber of the TSJA.
“The company has not been able to prove any of the facts alleged in the dismissal letter or in the response to the complaint,” says the judgment which, although it recognizes that the power to dismiss during the trial period is a unilateral power of the company, which does not have to respond to a specific and justified cause, “in cases like this, in which there are indications that the decision-making could be tainted by a violation of rights fundamental, reasonableness and the proportionality of the measure. must be proven. » Furthermore, “RTVA is a public body, respect for fundamental rights within its organization must therefore be observed with the greatest diligence”.
The reinstated employee, who argued during the hearing that the reason for his rehiring was due to his belonging to the employment pool, had accumulated around twenty contracts since 2004 (mostly temporary contracts by substitution) until that in October 2020, he requested a three-month contract, renewable for an additional three months. This was a full-time Technical Mixing Assistant position at the RTVA facilities in San Juan de Aznalfarache (Seville), with a two-month trial period provided for in the company’s collective agreement.
Ideologically “opposites”
Ricardo Martín and Álvaro Zancajo, reflects the phrase, “belong or have close ties to opposing political parties.” “The ideological distance between Podemos (or in its case Izquierda Anticapitalista-Revolta Global) and Vox is notorious. It is obvious that simple membership or relationship with ideologically different parties does not constitute, in itselfan indication of any type of discrimination, but it can help contextualize decision-making if accompanied by other objective facts.
Besides the fact that “there is no evidence” that the two knew each other personally, “so any enmity or confrontation for another reason that could have affected the dismissal decision can be excluded”, the working environment in where the affair takes place is “the information programs department of a public television channel, where the political presence is intense and permanent”. “Not only is the topic of the news marked by politics, but the RTVA board of directors is made up of people proposed by political parties” (in fact, Zancajo is currently part of it at the suggestion of Vox)
In this sense, Thursdays considers it “obvious” that “the ideological nuance has greater importance than in other areas” and that “not only membership or relationship with political parties must be taken into account but, in addition, it is public, active and “This has conditioned the careers of both.” The judgment, dated October 31, contextualizes his reflection and affirms that “the news concerning RTVE which corroborates the particular political importance of the area pursued” is contemporary with him.
In prime time shows
Thus, Ricardo Martín was assigned during this fall 2020 contract to live prime-time programs such as the evening news or Andalucía Directo, participating in parallel in a course on the operation and management of news tables. mixing in the production area of the line. One month after signing this contract, more precisely on November 23, 2020, the company sent him a burofax informing him that he had not completed the trial period “at all”, paying him 868.65 euros as settlement of the contract in proportional shares and you pay extras. vacation not taken.
At that time, the president of the Intercenter Committee went to the office of the director of production and design to find out the reasons for the termination of this working relationship. Although he initially said he had received complaints, he responded again, when questioned again, that the then news director, Álvaro Zancajo, did not like the employee, who would leave the channel before the end of 2020 after having held a position for almost a year in which he received numerous complaints of manipulation filed by workers, unions, organizations and associations. In May 2022, Zancajo signed for Vox as director of Macarena Olona ahead of the June 19 Andalusian elections. Previously, he was director of information at Antena 3 (until July 2016) and director of Canal 24 Horas de TVE (from December 2016 to September 2018).
Concerning these “complaints” against the worker, the judgment says that “it has not been declared as a proven fact that there were complaints from the coordinators of mixing and production of news programs, because There is no evidence of this, either regarding the attitude or the aptitude of the worker. “The evidence presented for this purpose was a document lacking author, signature and date which was not admitted because it lacked the necessary elements to be considered documentary proof and testimony” of the aforementioned production director and which “lacked specificity”. “.
A “revealing” testimony
It is precisely for this reason that the judges described the testimony of the production director as “revealing” “in relation to the existence of signs of discrimination” since “he was not able to specify what concrete complaint or who it was. had filed, but limited itself to “stating generalities on the alleged incompetence of the worker”, recalls the judgment. “The interrogation insisted on the identity of the people who had filed the complaint and was limited to responding to “a colleague and people responsible for coordination and execution”.
This director referred to the receipt of the anonymous document mentioned above, stressing that it was given to him by the production coordinators, who “were not identified nor called to testify even though it was a question of ‘allegedly essential evidence’. prove the alleged incompetence of the worker and the reality of not having passed the trial period.
“The witness indicated that he “did not have the level” but did not specify what functions he did not perform or what incidents his work caused in the chain. Furthermore, what was said at the end of his statement was inconsistent, according to which it was impossible for a person to have the aptitude for this position within a month when it was the network itself that did so. ‘called, knowing his qualifications and experience to execute him. In fact, according to what has been said, it is in the training phase, which makes the trial period chimerical. He also said he was confident he would be hired again because “he’s a valuable person and very high up in the bag.”
He said he remembered that a workers’ representative went to ask him the reasons for the dismissal of Martín Santos and “if the decision came from Mr. Zancajo, and only then did he declared that this was the reason,” the judgment said. said. The president of the Intercenter Committee, also a witness, recounted this episode in the office of the production director, who declared “that the information director did not like it” because “you already know what it is “, as the court decision recounts. .
Other witnesses also indicated that there had been no incident on the part of the worker and that this could be technically verified, which “could be accredited by the company”. The judgment recognizes that these witnesses are members of the works council “but, apart from the fact that their declaration was quite spontaneous, the data presented are consistent with the objective data recorded during the procedure”, as well as with the declaration of the production director. that “it was much vaguer”.
