MTPE: Falling asleep during work does not necessarily imply dismissal of the worker

The Ministry of Labor and Employment Promotion (MTPE) reported that the Supreme Court ruling in a particular case in which a worker was fired for falling asleep cannot be generalized and the same reasoning applied to other cases or ongoing processes.

The Cassation of the Supreme Court No. 13969-2019, that resolves the dismissal of a worker who fell asleep while driving a heavy concrete mixing vehicle (with the key in the ignition) and generated a potential risk of an accident at work, does not establish mandatory jurisprudential criteria that bind organs jurisprudential of the Republic.

However, the MTPE does not rule out that the sentence may serve as a a parameter or criterion to be evaluated in other subsequent cases. However, it is not a mandatory precedent.

CAN SEE:

They reported that for it to be consummated it would be required that the Constitutional and Social Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic learn about the appeal and summon the plenary session of the supreme judges who make up other chambers in constitutional and social matters, if any, for the purpose of issuing a judgment that constitutes or varies a judicial precedent.

“The judges could decide in a different way if a worker is fired for having fallen asleep during his working day. In this way, if the dismissal was arbitrary, the Judicial Power can order the replacement of the affected worker ”, they reported.

CAN SEE:

On the other hand, they indicated that guarantee respect for the right to due process, which means complying with sanctions. In this case, the conduct worthy of sanction (such as falling asleep during work hours) would have to be classified as a work offense liable to dismissal.

On the other hand, they reported that the dismissal must be consequence of due process (such as a warning letter or an imputation of the fault committed, etc.), which means that the employer cannot fire the worker if he has not followed the established procedure. If it were the opposite, it could be considered a violation of the worker’s right of defense.