Formalities to grant teleworking

The TSJ Madrid declares that to make part of the day through teleworking, the application by the worker is not enough, but its concession by the company is necessary.

The worker files a lawsuit against his disciplinary dismissal for repeated punctuality and non-compliance with work hours and lack of assistance to work. To mitigate the seriousness of his labor breach, he claims, among other considerations, to have requested authorization to carry out part of his day through telecommuting and, although pending approval, to have remote access to the company’s private network.

The demand is dismissed because one thing is that the worker had requested authorization to carry out part of his day through telecommuting and another is that he had granted or approved such request, the latter that does not follow the evidence provided in the trial. As long as that authorization had not been granted, his duty was to comply with the actual working hours established by the company.

The Court also points out that although the company had shown a condescending or acquiescent attitude with the actor’s behavior in his time of arrival at work in other years, such consent had ceased because his superior had already made it clear that he had to get to work at 9, as he has stated, and confirms the mail that he sent and has been admitted, so that the plaintiff was aware that his work entry time was 9 in the morning and he did not comply “(Basis Fourth Legal).

On the other hand, the actor is not being imputed, or at least not declared proven, a breach of his workday in global calculation, because even if the claimant had completed his workday, it would not exclude the default entity inherent to the faults punctuality, because the employer not only assists the right to demand the fulfillment of a certain working day (number of hours of work), but also that those hours of work are carried out within a specific time.