Thursday, April 24, 2025, 17:10
It has exceeded an extraordinary situation and affects an ambulance driver. In short, he stopped having breakfast with a patient on the plane, then exceeded the permissible speed because it was late and shot. The driver presented a supplier and he denied this.
The Castilla-La Mancha refused to appeal this ambulance driver, stressing the ruling issued by the Social Court No. 2 in Guadalajara in April 2024. The ruling that claimed that there was followers of cost by his company, Digamar Ser service was appealed
Digamar Servicios SL is devoted to transporting patients by road, with contracts with a health service in Castilla-La Mancha (SESCAM) to transport patients to hospitals and health centers. The man worked in the programmed service and his base was in Atanza, Guadalakara. Throughout his career in the company, he and other workers made unusual hours and amendments to the working hours, because the Supreme Court excluded the application of special days to transport patients, which led to demands to overcome working hours.
The worker’s dismissal was sent on May 29, 2023. The company claimed that the separation was due to many serious violations by the worker. The main device, which the author delayed to collect the patient, break the existing table. In addition, the worker was previously warned of not performing the necessary controls for the ambulance, and for about 20 minutes not authorized in places such as cafes and churrertas, with or without patients, which affected the service provided.
The disciplinary file also recorded another accident on April 12, 2023, when the driver started his role at 8:20, although he should have done it at 8:00. After that, he tried to restore the lost time, but he did so at a higher speed than the permitted, as it reached up to 143 km/hour, which represents a danger to patients and other public road users, he says ideal.
The worker argued that his actions were the result of technical or health problems, but the company considered that these facts justify the disciplinary separation. In his allegations, the affected also argued that his dismissal was linked to his union activity and that the additional work claims made by him and his other colleagues in the use of the union.
The Social Court Ruling No. 2 in Guadalajara in April 2024 rejected the worker’s request, which confirms the validity of the disciplinary separation. The worker appealed the decision before TSJ in Castilla-La Mancha, claiming that the separation was not justified and that there was a violation of their basic rights, especially those related to the freedom of associations.
However, the judges have believed the decision of the Court of First Instance, stressing that the violations committed by the prosecutor Borart the disciplinary procedure adopted by the company. The court rejected the worker’s allegations about the existence of the union’s persecution in the conclusion that there is not enough evidence to consider that the chapter was driven by his position as a representative of the Union to use the Union.
