The Bank of Spain must reinstate Jorge Pérez or pay him 418,215 euros

The Social Court number 41 of Madrid has estimated the demand of the former head of accounting of the Bank of Spain, Jorge Perezwho was fired in 2019. The authority chaired by Pablo Hernandez de Kos shall reinstate the technician in the same conditions and job or, where appropriate, pay him compensation of 418,215.06 euros, plus in the first case, the salaries accrued from the date of his dismissal at a rate of 362.09 euros gross per day. What is received in another new job or if you have received an unemployment benefit during this period will be deducted.

Legal sources explain that the dismissal has been declared unfairnot null, considering that the dismissal of the technician has not been sufficiently justified. For it to have been declared null its output should have been found to have occurred as retaliation for his statement in the Bankia case. There is room for appeal on the ruling, for which the Bank of Spain, which complies with it, has begun to analyze if it appeals or not. It should be pronounced in the next few days.

The court considers that “none of the infractions charged in the extinctive communication concur”. He understands that there is no prescription and, therefore, the dismissal must be declared “unfailingly inadmissible”, as stated in the sentence to which La Información has had access. Both this same Court and the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid initially determined that the action was expired. Therefore, the defense of Pérez, from the law firm Dikei LawyersHe took it to the Supreme Court. The monetary institution is represented by Uria Menendez.

The brief goes on to analyze his participation in the trial for the IPO of Bankia. In this case, the evidence provided in relation to the violation of the right to indemnity is the position of the plaintiff as a witness in the Bankia case, having been called as a witness in said trial, his opinion being different from that officially maintained by the Bank of Spain. Retaliation cannot be taken on this because it did not take place in the framework of the exercise of his work, but in the statement of the worker in a judicial action, together with that of many other witnesses.

The disciplinary sanction does not emerge due to the exercise of the rights that may assist the worker in their labor relations, but for reasons that, although they may have concomitance with labor technical knowledge they are alien to that becoming of their own claim of rights. Plus the formal citation does not occur until the middle of the sanctioning file. Not considering, therefore, that there is a well-founded indication that allows sustaining the minimum suspicion of the asserted violation,” the sentence emphasizes.

Although the lawsuit was dismissed from the beginning for allegedly having filed it after the deadline, the judicial deliberation did not consider proven disloyalty on the part of Pérez. In fact, and according to the testimonial, it was determined that the internal data of the Bank of Spain that the former senior official used “they did not have the secret, confidential or reserved reviewnor for exclusively internal use” and emphasis was placed on the testimony of his hierarchical superior at the time of the dismissal, Daniel Pérez, who during the trial defended as a witness that he always carried out his duties “completely efficiently, without any blemish”.

Was the July 31, 2019through a letter sent by burofax, when Pérez was notified of his disciplinary dismissal with effect from the day of the communication, alleging the commission of three offenses of a very serious nature. The Bank of Spain assured that the former head of regulation abused trust in the performance of his work, repeatedly and voluntarily failed to comply with the orders received and breached professional secrecy. It should be noted that he was the only manager who distanced himself from the official version of the leadership of the Bank of Spain in the trial for Bankia’s IPO.