Post by account_disabled on Mar 7, 2024 0:28:19 GMT -6
The truth is that the trial judge has given greater probative value - with regard to this non-compliance - to the plaintiff's expert report, according to which " the documents are recorded in the personal cloud as a result of having been shared by other people with the plaintiff, so that when he receives the email informing him that a certain file has been shared with him and opens the corresponding link, the file is automatically archived in the plaintiff's cloud , in the section or Share with me folder , which would be equivalent to a lack of intention on the part of the worker to divert company information to private files.” Finally, regarding the third imputation, it is described in the appeal as “conflict of interest.
The defendant questions the assessment given in the resolution appealed to the content of a conversation that took place between the plaintiff and another person who provides services for the appellant company, regarding the conversation held between the worker and the other person from the competition before mentioned. The content of the message includes the following: «very soft with his new project. A bit of pill Fax Lists dropping on topics where CRH is more advanced…” This message, in the opinion of the defendant company, is proof that the confidentiality agreement has been breached because professional and confidential topics were discussed at the meeting. However, the TSJ has ruled that “the truth is that it does not necessarily amount to the worker sharing with third parties”, his friend from the competition, “confidential information” related to the employer.
Well, although it does seem to be deduced that throughout the meeting between these two people issues of a professional nature were discussed, the specific content of the information exchanged is not sufficiently proven, nor whether the data or elements about which they spoke were part of the of subjects or projects subject to the duty of confidentiality assumed by the dismissed worker.Those affected by IRPH demand a legislative reform that annuls this index and compensates those affected Twenty Spanish cities host different protest concentrations about this index and the need to apply the latest ruling of the CJEU Concentration of those affected by the IRPH in front of the Supreme Court.
The defendant questions the assessment given in the resolution appealed to the content of a conversation that took place between the plaintiff and another person who provides services for the appellant company, regarding the conversation held between the worker and the other person from the competition before mentioned. The content of the message includes the following: «very soft with his new project. A bit of pill Fax Lists dropping on topics where CRH is more advanced…” This message, in the opinion of the defendant company, is proof that the confidentiality agreement has been breached because professional and confidential topics were discussed at the meeting. However, the TSJ has ruled that “the truth is that it does not necessarily amount to the worker sharing with third parties”, his friend from the competition, “confidential information” related to the employer.
Well, although it does seem to be deduced that throughout the meeting between these two people issues of a professional nature were discussed, the specific content of the information exchanged is not sufficiently proven, nor whether the data or elements about which they spoke were part of the of subjects or projects subject to the duty of confidentiality assumed by the dismissed worker.Those affected by IRPH demand a legislative reform that annuls this index and compensates those affected Twenty Spanish cities host different protest concentrations about this index and the need to apply the latest ruling of the CJEU Concentration of those affected by the IRPH in front of the Supreme Court.