The court forced Osip to reinstate the chief of works who was investigated after the change of government in 2015

In the case, Brescia says that a summary of the Alleged absence without excuse Days after the change of government from Francisco Pérez to Alfredo Cornejo when “changes occurred in the structures and officials in the OSEP environment.”

► You may be interested: Behind the scenes of the portrait of Peronism and the role of mayors in the week of definitions

The court considered it This summary that started affected a serious vice Given that the agent has not been informed in detail of the facts in respect of which an investigation is being conducted; Moreover, the judges understood this No “malicious and willful negligence” is not configured To punish the class to move forward. The Public Prosecutor’s Office had ruled in favor of OSEP.

Court ruling to OSEP

The First Circuit of the Supreme Court of Justice, made up of Justices Day, Gomez, and Llorente, was dissolved “Conviction of the Obra Social de Empleados Publicos, under Article 68 CPA, to restore the plaintiff to the permanent factory position he occupied on the date on which he ordered the dismissal”.

The ruling came after Gabriel Ernesto Brescia a.d Administrative procedure against OSEP With the annulment of Decree No. 975/20 of Rodolfo Suarez, which confirmed the dismissal decision of the current Board of Directors of Opera Social.

This penalty was imposed as a result of a An initiated summary of eight unexcused absences and absences from the workplace without notice where was he going

And regardless of whether this absence is excused or not, What the court considered was that at the beginning of the investigation, the conduct of the investigation was not reported in a “clear and organized” manner. With the appropriate conditions of time, style, and place, on the contrary, “only the files referring to different situations were piled up in a disorderly and confusing manner.”

In the arguments for the verdict, the court explained: “There was not even a generality in defining the facts imposed on the perpetrator, but rather an absolute lack of mention of them.”

This work of the inquisitors to the magistrates was thus flawed The act is invalid.

► You might be interested: Oyhenart’s cell phone and three terabytes of imaging and co-ops: What comes in the Las Heras case

In addition, the court ordered the following: “grasping” that obligations were not being fulfilled due to unexcused absence, failure to remain in his position or failure to give notice of where he was going.

“Even considering that Mr. Brescia had effectively withdrawn from his employment without permission and that he was absent without excuse, the behaviors listed are not sufficient to fit him” into a reason for dismissal for malicious and voluntary abandonment.

Thus, for the superior, Neither reality nor applicable law has been reasonably assessed Thus, the dismissal penalty is contrary to the constitutional or legal norms and must be abolished.

With this ruling, OSEP must not only return the employee to the position of head of business, but also pay the costs from the operation.