The Supreme Court rejected the appeal for the unification of jurisprudence filed against the judgment handed down by the Court of Punta Arenas, which dismissed the appeal for annulment filed against the basic judgment, which accepted a claim for unjustified dismissal, void, and revocation of benefits, taken against a construction company and the Welfare Command of the Chilean Army.
The plaintiff provided services for the construction company as an electrical and plumbing master, from May 15, 2018 to March 18, 2019, when he was dismissed on the grounds of “company needs.” He stated that he worked in the maintenance and after-sales service of a housing complex belonging to the Army, which was meant for the staff of the institution. Since his employer recorded unpaid periods of his contributions, he requested the payment of individual compensation to the contracting company and together with the Army Welfare Command, because there was subcontracting work.
The court of first instance allowed the claim and declared the dismissal null and void, condemning the two defendants jointly and severally to pay outstanding compensation and benefits until validation; decision affirmed by the Court of Punta Arenas by rejecting the appeal for annulment presented by the Army Welfare Command.
Against this final judgment, the joint defendant filed an appeal for the consolidation of jurisprudence.
The matter of the law that he requested to be consolidated consists of determining, “(…) the correct meaning and scope of article 183-A of the Labor Code, in relation to its articles 183-B and 183-C, which determines that there must be an agreement between the main company and the contractor on the construction and subcontracting regime.”
For approval, the actor submitted three judgments previously issued by the Supreme Court which he claimed affected the same matter.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for unity, after reasoning that, “(…) it was established that the actor provided services under the subcontracting regime in the post-sale stage, so it was not observed that the sentence gained any that way. in violation of the law, because this defendant continues to have legal responsibilities derived from the subcontracting regime in the post-sale period, which will not disappear because the process of final acceptance of the work has been completed.”
Regarding the sentences included for comparison, the judgment added that they refer to real assumptions different from those raised in this case, so they cannot be used for homologation.
Based on the above, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on merits.
