The Professional Union of Local Police and Firefighters is battling to ensure that the Yaiza City Council "complies with the law" with respect to the officials of the Local Police of the municipality.
Likewise, it denounces "irregularities" in the actions of the council and highlights that, "in the absence of commanders", a contest was called in 2019 to provide positions for officers of the Local Police. According to this union, after the admission of eight candidates for the position of officer, the City Council "incomprehensibly paralyzed said process", and meanwhile, "to cover the absence of commanders, it has appointed a local police officer without any valid selection process, who was not even among those eight admitted as candidates for officer."
This union has highlighted "time and again the irregular action of the Yaiza City Council", an entity it accuses of violating "the rights of its police officers", and to whom it points out that it "insists on appointing an official as officer and as Chief of Police by hand, violating the right of the rest of the officials, many with greater seniority, and who meet the requirements for access to the position of Local Police Officer, who are continuously ignored by this City Council and are denied their legitimate progression in their professional career."
The SPPLB has been appealing the appointments as Chief of the Local Police of Yaiza of "that official appointed by the mayor without any selection process, and has always obtained favorable results, sometimes through administrative appeals and others through judicial sentences that have all given the SPPLB the reason and have annulled the appointments made by the Mayor's Office, with costs awarded to the City Council."
The latest ruling, issued by the Contentious Court 6 of Las Palmas in PA 321/2022, upholds the appeal filed by the SPPLB against the Decree of the Yaiza City Council in which it "appointed the same police officer as a substitute for the chief of the Local Police this time due to the retirement of the former chief, without justification to appoint that agent and without any selection process, and again condemns the City Council to pay costs."
This ruling joins the previous ones obtained by the SPPLB in relation to the appointments made by the City Council regarding that same official: Ruling of May 17, 2023 issued by the Contentious Court 2 in PA 427/2022; and the Ruling of September 26, 2022 issued by the Contentious Court 3 in PA 500/2021. All of them favorable for the SPPLB and unfavorable for the Yaiza City Council with costs awarded. To these rulings, we must add an Order of December 13, 2021 issued by the Contentious Court 1 in PA 233/2021 that annuls the appointment of the same official as a substitute for the Chief of the Local Police, as the City Council has submitted, recognizing the illegality of such substitution, and in addition, we will have to add 2 more procedures that are in progress challenging the appointment of Officer, and the appointment of Chief Officer with respect to the same official who has already had his previous appointments as superior of his colleagues overturned.
In addition to "those procedures referring to a specific official whom the City Council insists on putting above his colleagues without any legal justification", the SPPLB has also obtained a favorable ruling against the Yaiza City Council accrediting "the constant violation of legality with respect to its own local police officers and obtaining another ruling that annulled an assignment on a commission of services to an official of the Local Police of another corporation (Ruling of May 19, 2022 issued by the Contentious Court 2 in PA 23/2022 with costs awarded to the City Council)."
Finally, the union has highlighted that "it is evident, therefore, the determination and reiteration of the Yaiza City Council in violating the rights of its own officials of the Local Police force, and even more, it evidences a whole strategy aimed at fattening the resume of a specific police officer and appointing him commander, officer and chief of the Local Police, violating current legislation and to the detriment of his colleagues."
