Court partially allowed employment relationship claim by finding de facto employment despite written contracts for services.
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe court partially dismissed the plaintiff's claim to establish an employment relationship, finding one existed from October 2010 to April 2013. Although the parties signed service contracts, the court determined the plaintiff worked under subordination, received a monthly salary, and followed a fixed schedule. The decision relied on witness testimonies and the employer's failure to produce original attendance records, applying procedural rules to infer the true nature of the relationship.
Legislator headnote
AI generatedArt. 22 § 1 k.p.; Art. 248 § 1, 2 k.p.c.: A written contract for services does not preclude a finding of an employment relationship if the actual performance of work demonstrates subordination, and the court may establish facts based on witness testimony when the employer fails to produce required documentation.