The judge of the Social Court number 1 of Arrecife, Davinia Carolina García, has dismissed the lawsuit filed by Miguel Ángel Leal against the Arrecife City Council, in which he demanded that he be returned to the position of Tourism Technician.
As will be recalled, in October 2022, after the cancellation of Sunset Arrecife, the Councilor for Human Resources signed a decree on October 24, returning Miguel Ángel Leal to the position he holds in the Consistory, as a socio-cultural animator, reporting to the Culture area. Leal responded by submitting a letter to the City Council addressed to the then mayor Ástrid Pérez, in which he asked her to “immediately repair the damage caused” by invalidating that decree, returning him to the position of technician, also threatening to file a complaint for “inducing criminal commission.”
Now, the judge has dismissed his claim, detailing in the ruling to which La Voz has had access, "that the plaintiff does not have any right to the category actually developed since he has not accessed it through the legally established procedure, and has not proven that he is in possession of the qualification required for it. Article 23 of the Collective Agreement refers to the qualification required in Article 25 of Law 30/1984, which establishes that in order to access positions classified within Group B, it is required to hold the title of Technical Engineer, University Diploma, Technical Architect, Third-Grade Professional Training or equivalent, and the plaintiff has not provided any evidence to prove that he possesses such qualification."
"And despite the fact that, although it is indicative that after several years he has been transferred to the position of origin a few days after the events related to the Sunset Arrecife festival, this is only an indication that does not prove that it has been adopted as a disguised sanction, given that it was precisely an irregularity that the actor was performing tasks that are not those of his professional group and for which he does not have the required qualification.
In addition, the judge points out that "on the other hand, and despite the allegations of both parties in the trial, the legality or not of the entire administrative procedure in relation to the authorization for the celebration of the festival is not the subject of this procedure or the competence of this jurisdictional order."
Finally, in the ruling, the judge adds that "since it is concluded that the plaintiff does not have the right to the category he was performing, it is not possible to accede to the claim for conviction to the amounts claimed as salary differences."
The plaintiff, however, has the possibility of filing an appeal against this decision.
