La extinción del contrato por absentismo: productividad empresarial versus derechos constitucionales reconocidos al trabajador. (RI §422362)
Termination of the contract due to absenteeism: business productivity versus constitutional rights recognized for the worker -
Josep Moreno Gené
La reforma de la causa de extinción del contrato por ausencias del trabajador que se prevé en el art. 52 d) ET que se llevó a cabo mediante la reforma laboral de 2012 enseguida levantó fuertes críticas por considerarse que la misma se oponía a lo previsto en la Constitución Española y, muy especialmente, al derecho a la integridad física (art. 15 CE), a la salud (art. 40.2 CE) y al trabajo (art. 35.1 CE). En este contexto de dudas sobre la constitucionalidad del art. 52 d) ET se incardina la Sentencia del Tribunal Constitucional 118/2019, de 16 de octubre, que procede a desestimar, sin excepción, los diferentes motivos de inconstitucionalidad que se acaban de exponer. Ahora bien, dicha sentencia no se dicta de forma unánime, sino que, por el contrario, la misma contiene diferentes votos particulares, en los que participan cuatro magistrados, que discrepan enérgicamente del fallo mayoritario, al considerar que el art. 52 d) ET sí vulnera diferentes derechos reconocidos constitucionalmente, ya sea el derecho a la integridad física y salud de los trabajadores (arts. 15 y 43.1 ET), el derecho al trabajo de los mismos (art. 35.1 CE) e, incluso, su derecho a la igualdad y a la no discriminación (art. 14 CE). En este trabajo se analizan, precisamente, los razonamientos empleados por la mayoría de los magistrados para justificar el fallo de la sentencia, así como también, los argumentos contenidos en los votos particulares que la misma contiene, que permiten a los magistrados que los emiten llegar a conclusiones tan dispares.
I. La configuración del despido por absentismo del trabajador tras la reforma laboral de 2012 y las dudas que se plantean sobre su constitucionalidad.- II. El fundamento constitucional del art. 52 d) ET como punto de partida de la sentencia del Tribunal Constitucional: la productividad de la empresa como elemento central.- III. La posible afectación del art. 52 d) ET al derecho a la integridad física y a la protección de la salud del trabajador.- IV. La posible afectación del art. 52 d) ET al derecho al trabajo del trabajador.- V. La extinción del contrato prevista en el art. 52 d) ET como supuesto de discriminación por razón de enfermedad, discapacidad y de género.- VI. La pervivencia del art. 52 d) ET contra “viento y marea”: frente a la insuficiencia de los límites constitucionales e internacionales como freno del despido de trabajadores enfermos resulta imprescindible la intervención del legislador.- VII. Bibliografía.
The reform of the cause of termination of contract due to worker absences foreseen in Art. 52 d) of the Workers Statute (ET), which was implemented in the 2012 labour reform, immediately gave rise to considerable criticism on being considered that it went against the provisions of the Spanish Constitution and, most especially, the right to physical integrity (Art. 15 of the Spanish Constitution [CE]), to health (Art. 40.2 CE) and to work (Art. 35.1 CE). The Judgement of the Constitutional Court (STC) 118/2019, of 16 #(§000001) ar. 16# October, which proceeds to reject, without any exception, the different grounds of unconstitutionality which have just been set forth, comes within this context of doubts concerning the constitutionality of Art. 52 d) ET. However, this judgement is not delivered unanimously but rather, on the contrary, contains different individual votes, in which four magistrates participate, who vigorously disagree with the majority ruling, on considering that Art. 52 d) ET does infringe various constitutionally recognized rights, whether the right to the physical integrity and health of the workers (Arts. 15 and 43.1 ET), their right to work (Art. 35.1 CE) or, even, their right to equality and to non-discrimination (Art. 14 CE). This study analyzes precisely the reasoning used by the majority of the magistrates to justify the ruling, in addition to the arguments contained in the individual votes that the judgement contains, which allow the magistrates which issue them to reach such different conclusions.
I. The set-up of dismissal due to absenteeism of the worker following the 2012 labour reform and the doubts which arise concerning its constitutionality. II. The constitutional basis of Art. 52 d) ET as a starting point of the judgement of the constitutional court: the productivity of the company as the central element. III. The possible effects of Art. 52 d) ET on the right to physical integrity and to the protection of health of the worker. 1. Delimitation of the controversy raised. 2. The doctrine contained in the STC of 16 October 2019 which supports the compliance of Art. 52 d) ET with the rights to physical integrity (Art. 15 CE) and to the health of the workers (Art. 43.1 CE ). 3. The doctrine contained in the individual votes which consider Art. 52 d) ET to be contrary to the rights to the physical integrity (Art. 15 CE) and to the health (Art. 43.1 CE ) of the workers. VI. The possible effects of Art. 52 d) ET on the right to work of the worker.1. Delimitation of the controversy raised. 2. The doctrine contained in the STC of 16 October 2019 which supports the compliance of Art. 52 d) ET with the right to work of the workers (Art. 35.1 CE). 3. The doctrine contained in the individual votes which consider Art. 52 d) ET to be contrary to the right to work (Art. 35.1 CE). V. Termination of the contract foreseen in Art. 52 d) ET as alleged discrimination on grounds of illness, disability and gender. VI. The survival of Art. 52 d) ET “against all odds”: the intervention of the legislator is essential in the face of the inadequacy of the constitutional and international limits to curb the dismissal of sick workers. VII. Bibliography.
DIRECTOR
