The Tías City Council did not violate any rights by preventing a union representative from attending a meeting last February, as there were "health reasons" that justified it. This is the conclusion of the Contentious-Administrative Court Number 6 of Las Palmas, which has dismissed the lawsuit filed by the Independent Trade Union of Civil Servants (CSIF), which accused the City Council of having violated the right to freedom of association of its representative in the City Council.
"It cannot be understood that the reasons why Francisco Javier Abad Ojeda was not allowed to participate in the General Negotiation Table were due to the unjustified fact of preventing his action as a union delegate," the ruling states, which insists that this decision responded "to health reasons that were duly communicated to him prior to the meeting."
Specifically, this union member and member of the Local Police of the municipality was on leave after testing positive for Covid, as he himself has confirmed on Radio Lanzarote – Onda Cero. However, Abad went to the City Council and tried to enter the meeting, as he insists that at that time he had already overcome the disease, and that he only continued on leave "for the healing of residual clinic."
"Ten days had passed since I was discharged from Covid and there was no confinement. It was as simple as calling the tracking team. With a phone call it could have been solved," he argues, repeating the same argument that he raised in his lawsuit, and which has been rejected.
In this regard, the Court responds that Abad "knew of his medical discharge for coronavirus on February 10, with more than enough time before the day of the meeting" -which took place on the 26th-, and even so "decided to attend it without any document that would allow to verify such fact."
In addition, it describes as "contradictory" that the lawsuit places on the City Council the responsibility of obtaining "medical information from Mr. Abad", while at the same time questioning that "protected health data of the union delegate before the rest of the attendees to the Table" were disclosed, who were informed of the situation when he tried to access the meeting. "He alludes to the protection of his health data that, however, he understands were available to the City Council," the ruling questions, which imposes on the union the payment of the costs generated with this lawsuit.
"He intended to have his statement accepted as valid"
The ruling thus gives the reason to the City Council, which also defended that the CSIF "could well designate another person to be present, who was not on leave due to Covid-19, or provide any medical document that would prove that Mr. Abad could be present in it without putting at risk the health of all the workers of the City Council and the rest of the members of the Table."
"What the union and Mr. Abad intended is that the City Council and the rest of the members of the Table would accept as valid his statement of word that he was no longer infected with Covid-19, above the medical documentation that was in the City Council," he insisted in his response to the lawsuit.
In fact, as the ruling considers proven, that day he was urged to provide "some medical certification that would support what he maintained and be able to join the Table, but he did not do so." It was when presenting the lawsuit that he provided the Court with a certificate that was dated days after the meeting was held, specifically on March 3.
"Protect the health of public employees and the rest of the members of the Table"
"It cannot be forgotten that the decision not to allow his presence has been adopted in a context of health crisis generated by the expansion of the Covid-19 coronavirus to the level of international pandemic," the ruling emphasizes, which reiterates that "he was given the possibility to justify what he stated", but he did not do so.
Therefore, he understands sufficiently motivated the decision of the Councilor of Human Resources, pointing out that it was "aimed at protecting the health of public employees of the municipal corporation and the rest of the members of the General Negotiation Table, in order to prevent the spread of Covid-19", especially at the time when the events occurred, when the percentage of vaccination was still very low and Lanzarote was going through its worst moment in terms of infections and mortality.
Who made public in his day what happened in that meeting was the Popular Party, which sent a statement to the media attacking the government group, but ignoring the reasons that had led him not to let this union delegate enter. In that press release, the populars spoke of "arbitrariness", "sectarianism, "completely capricious" and even "despotic" attitudes on the part of the councilor of the area when adopting that decision, which has now been fully endorsed by the Justice.