Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for differences to arise among workers in the workplace that result in arguments or even physical altercations between colleagues.
The cause for dismissal due to the use of "forceful means" or, in other words, physical aggressions, is regulated in sections a) and b) of Article 81 of the Labor Code, which establish that the following are grounds for dismissal without employer liability:
a . When the employee conducts himself/herself during his/her work in an openly immoral manner, or resorts to slander, calumny or other acts against his/her employer;
b . When the worker commits any of the acts listed in the previous section against a fellow worker during work hours,provided that such actions significantly disrupt discipline and work is interrupted;
From the aforementioned regulations, it can be deduced that when the worker engages in insult, defamation, or physical aggression against their employer , this constitutes a serious offense and therefore justifies dismissal without employer liability. However, when these same offenses are committed against another colleague , it is required that the aggressions significantly disrupt discipline and work be interrupted, as otherwise, the offense could not be sanctioned with dismissal without employer liability.
"With this provision, the legislator intended to sanction those behaviors in which the employee engages that contravene, first of all, the ethical content of the employment contract derived from the principle of good faith contained in numeral 19 idem, and secondly, it punishes the breach of the obligation contained in section d) of article 71 idem, according to which the employee must observe good customs during work hours. The repeated jurisprudence of this Court has stated that for this offense to be configured, the three requirements provided by the regulation must be met: a) that the act occurs during work hours; b) that discipline is significantly disrupted; and c) that work is interrupted" (Resolution 1474-2010 of the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice at 10:15 on November 10, 2010. The highlighting is not in the original text).
Therefore, despite being highly reprehensible behavior, physical or verbal aggressions between colleagues in the workplace are not grounds for dismissal without employer liability if discipline is not significantly disrupted and work is not interrupted.
In this regard, the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice has indicated:
“"From the testimonial evidence offered by the defendant, it can be extracted that the plaintiff resorted to de facto means against his coworkers and also insulted them,, while they were performing their work, but there is no evidence that discipline was seriously altered and work was interrupted, as required by the rule cited at the beginning of this section for the cause to be configured.. The witnesses did not mention that there were problems of entry through the doctors' door due to the altercation; neither was it reported that this mishap affected the public service (for example, that the distribution of tickets to the golden citizens was suspended). In conclusion, the dismissal must be considered unjustified. This does not mean that the Chamber endorses the reproachable behavior of the plaintiff, only that it was not punishable by dismissal, but that some other disciplinary measure (less drastic) of those allowed by law should have been applied" (Resolution 872-2014 of the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of 09:50 of September 5, 2014. The highlighting does not appear in the original)
In similar sense:
The interpretation and application of Article 81 paragraph b), of the Labor Code, made by the Court, in the majority vote, is considered correct. In concrete terms, it can be said that, according to the aforementioned provision, the employer may terminate the employment contract when the employee, during his work, conducts himself in an openly immoral manner, or resorts to slander, libel or acts of violence against a co-worker, provided, however, that as a consequence of this, discipline is seriously disturbed and the work is interrupted. The law expressly requires in this case, unlike the case contained in paragraph a) above, that the employee's conduct has a serious repercussion in the work environment, to such an extent that, as a consequence, discipline is altered and the normal performance of work in the work center is interrupted. So it is not simply a matter of the differences - albeit reprehensible - that sometimes occur between coworkers. In order for verbal or de facto aggressions committed by an employee against his coworkers to be validly punishable by dismissal, the law requires that they have transcended the normal work environment, to such an extent that they seriously alter the discipline and the course of the work. The lack of this condition does not prevent the employee from being corrected by means of other disciplinary actions, also provided for in the legal system in question; but not with dismissal, which is the most serious sanction that can be imposed on an employee, because it is excessive". (Resolution 166-2008 of the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of 10:45 a.m. on February 27, 2008. The highlighting does not appear in the original).
Therefore, in the absence of these requirements (significant disruption of discipline and work interruption), it is recommended to proceed with other less severe disciplinary measures than dismissal without employer liability.
At Bufete Godínez y Asociados, we specialize in counseling and advising employers in labor and employment law. If you need any additional information, do not hesitate to contact us by clicking here.
About the Autor