Post by account_disabled on Jan 11, 2024 2:03:24 GMT -5
that: "the mere fact that he is litigating or has litigated against the same employer does not make a witness suspect." . In reality, it does not constitute an "exchange of favors" when employees, who find themselves infringed on their labor rights, use each other's testimony as witnesses to prove the losses caused by the employer. Now, the employee cannot be required to present only the testimony of an employee who has no action against the company, as this would make it difficult for her to prove her allegations in court, given that testimonial evidence is the main thing she needs. has such a task. I reject. 2.2.
Moral damage: The appellant maintains that it maintains several contracts with airline companies, including "American Airlines", which, for hiring employees, determines that the defendant selects some employees who meet the requirements of said company and the employee has the option to ac Phone Number List cept whether or not to submit to the test. It states that it had no involvement in carrying out the aforementioned test and cannot now be condemned for the procedures adopted by its service providers. Finally, it is understood that the moral damage actually caused did not appear in the records. Let's see.
It remains undisputed in the records that the author, admitted to the services of the appellant company on August 1, 1999, was asked to submit to a polygraph test between December/01 and January/02, and, if approved, would start working its tasks with the contracted company "AmericanAirlines". It is also undisputed that, having not passed the so-called "test", it did not provide services to the contracted company, and it is worth mentioning, in this sense, the testimony of the representative heard at the hearing: that the purpose of the test with the polygraph device was to verify the possibility of the recte being or not providing services to American Airlines; that the demand came from American Airlines.
Moral damage: The appellant maintains that it maintains several contracts with airline companies, including "American Airlines", which, for hiring employees, determines that the defendant selects some employees who meet the requirements of said company and the employee has the option to ac Phone Number List cept whether or not to submit to the test. It states that it had no involvement in carrying out the aforementioned test and cannot now be condemned for the procedures adopted by its service providers. Finally, it is understood that the moral damage actually caused did not appear in the records. Let's see.
It remains undisputed in the records that the author, admitted to the services of the appellant company on August 1, 1999, was asked to submit to a polygraph test between December/01 and January/02, and, if approved, would start working its tasks with the contracted company "AmericanAirlines". It is also undisputed that, having not passed the so-called "test", it did not provide services to the contracted company, and it is worth mentioning, in this sense, the testimony of the representative heard at the hearing: that the purpose of the test with the polygraph device was to verify the possibility of the recte being or not providing services to American Airlines; that the demand came from American Airlines.