The Social Court number four of Gipuzkoa annulled the dismissal of a security guard at Hondarribia Airport who worked for the company I-Sec Spain Avioation Security, for a “serious and repeated violation of his fundamental rights”, including the right to equality, freedom of association and effective judicial protection and, therefore, orders the “immediate reinstatement of the worker”, condemns the company to pay the wages due from the moment of dismissal and to pay compensation of 10,000 euros. The court considers that it has been proven that the worker suffered “discriminatory treatment” in the assignment of positions which he reported to the Labor Inspectorate, complaints which, according to the court, “influenced the decision of the “company to terminate his employment contract” and that he was dismissed in part because of his “demanding” attitude. Furthermore, he emphasizes that the evaluation report to which the company clings, which considers the worker “unfit” for the position, and which was carried out by an evaluator from the Civil Guard, “is a document prepared in the sole purpose of awarding the company the auxiliary airport security service terminates the employment contract.
The worker was fired from his job on January 1, 2024, although the discrepancies and complaints for what he considers discrimination in his work came from his period of work in the company that previously obtained the service, Transportes Blindados SA, where he worked since 2021. . It must be taken into account that security at the airport depends on the Civil Guard, which subcontracts part of the services and subrogation models in the different contracts.
The worker had presented himself twice to the Labor Inspectorate of Transportes Armorados for an “unfair” distribution of night shifts and workload in relation to his person. The Inspectorate asked the company to adopt measures to put an end to this situation, without success. After taking charge of the I-Sec Spain Air Safety award on January 1, 2024, “the situation persisted” and he was assigned twelve consecutive days of nighttime, which again motivated the worker to protest. Faced with this situation, the company asked him to present a copy of his identity card and his driving license, which the worker refused, emphasizing that these were documents already in the company’s possession. business. This refusal gave rise to a meeting of the restricted security committee of Hondarribia airport composed of a lieutenant-colonel and a brigadier of the Civil Guard, a commissioner of the National Police, a commissioner of Ertzaintza, the director of Hondarribia airport and his person in charge of security. During this meeting, a file prepared by the assessing agent – who corresponds to an agent of the Civil Guard – was presented on August 3, 2023 in which the complainant was declared “unfit” for the profession of security agent.
The judgment confirms with regard to said evaluation that the identity of the agent who carried it out has not been proven, that different evaluations were carried out depending on the workers and, above all, that despite considering the complainant worker as “unfit” for employment, the evaluator “He did not communicate this conclusion to his superiors, to the management of Hondarribia airport, to the company for which he provided services or to the representation of workers.” “With the responsibility of maintaining an airport security service for a person who, in the opinion of the assessing officer, is not fit to carry out these duties. ” That is to say that it remained hidden for more than five months and that “the result of this evaluation was only communicated during the meeting of the select airport security committee and due to the refusal of the actor to provide a copy of his identity document and travel permit.” . conduct, and at the request of a company other than that during which the evaluation was carried out.
For this reason, the Tribunal concludes that “there is not the slightest proof that the content of the evaluation report is true, since it is not proven that the behavior of the actor gave rise to any complaint , even from the Civil Guard. , neither by the airport management nor by airport users. It therefore considers that it is a document drawn up with the sole aim of the winning company terminating the employment contract with the applicant” and accepts the request for cancellation of the dismissal.
