News

Santiago of Chile. In a unanimous ruling, Ministers of the Court of Appeals Manuel Silva Ibáñez and Ines Letelier, as well as Judicial Prosecutor Jacqueline Nash, rejected the appeal for annulment presented by the retail chain against the ruling of Valparaiso Labour Court which sentenced the firm to pay the sum of $1.468.500 (US$ 2.937) to Luis Muñoz and $2.326.500 (US$ 4.653) to Julio Pezo Medina.



According to the trial’s records, the workers had been employed since 2005 and 2001 respectively, controlling the vehicle’s access to the parking lot reserved for clients; they were also in charge of cleaning the area; they carried out maintenance duties (painting, plant care tasks, they were in charge of keeping the place clean and in order, and washing and moving the supermarket’s cars); putting flags and banners with special offers with the commercial establishment’s logo and were in charge of the premise’s security. However, their only remuneration was the tips they received from the clients. Both were dismissed in February 1^st 2010 alleging “company necessity” and none of the two workers received any compensation, the company’s position in this regard was that they voluntarily performed duties for the firm.



However, Valparaiso Court determined that the “actors fulfilled their duties with continuity at the Santa Isabel Supermarket client’s parking lot in Viña del Mar, which belongs to the defendant. On the other hand, attendance to work was considered an obligation, otherwise they were penalised with suspension or dismissal; they were compelled to fulfil two shifts established by the manager, which started at 7.30 am (the first) and the second at 15.30 pm; they received orders from the manager in relation to their cleaning duties, the fulfilment of shifts, the control of parking time and care of vehicles, which is proved through the parking tickets the company delivered through its secretary”.



“It is easy to conclude that there is enough evidence to prove the existence of the element of subordination, having the actors been actually salaried employees subjected to labour informality, which left them unprotected. Therefore, the employer neither complied with its obligation to pay salaries, nor social security benefits, which constitutes unfulfilment of labour obligation derived from the worker’s weakness, but does not alter the real situation of having to respect salaried-workers’ rights” determines the resolution.



Source: Terra.cl



Translation: UNI americas