Illescas Town Hall violated the principle of equality and non-discrimination in the election of fourteen municipal police officers, among a staff of 29 agents, for the security device in the San Silvestre race that was held on December 31, 2019. This is reflected in a sentence of a Toledo court that has now been ratified by the Superior Court of Justice (TSJ) of Castilla-La Mancha.
The high regional court amends the plan to the local government team and agrees with the agents. But, in practice, it does not carry any sanction for the Government team, which he will not appeal the sentence. Furthermore, the Supreme Court limits the costs to be paid by the council to the police attorney at 300 euros, “taking into account the circumstances of the case and degree of complexity.”
The judgment of instance, of the Contentious-Administrative Court number 1 of Toledo, annulled the resolution of the Councilor for Traffic of the City Council, Elvira Manzaneque, which ordered the mandatory provision of services to fourteen local police officers, who then sued the consistory.
There was, therefore, discrimination against other components of the workforce, as confirmed by the high regional court, which assures in its ruling that “the different treatment between local police officers has not been justified.” The City Council has not offered “any objective criterion that explains the reason why the fourteen officers were chosen”, “beyond indicating that it was carried out randomly.”
“Difference in treatment”
The verdict of the Supreme Court is produced by the appeal presented by the Illescas Government team. According to the court ruling, the consistory has not explained the reason why it resorted to that election system nor has it provided evidence on the way in which it was developed. “By not offering an objective justification for the difference in treatment,” the court concludes, like the judge of the Toledo court, that “the principle of equality was violated.” This precept prohibits inequalities that are unjustified “because they are not based on objective and reasonable criteria.”
According to the plaintiffs, they were already working by quadrant on December 24 and 25, 2019, in addition to January 5 and 6, 2020, which deprived them of enjoying a Christmas holiday with their family members. In other cases they were also forced to suspend scheduled and paid trips.
The City Council is not going to appeal the judgment in cassation before the Supreme Court, as confirmed to ABC by Francisco Rodríguez, spokesman for the Government team. “But We continue to insist that the procedure was correct; another thing is that the forms perhaps … We did not specifically specify that all equality criteria had been used in order to select those agents who had come from participating in special services. It may be that, formally, it had not been made explicit. But it couldn’t have been others [los agentes seleccionados] because they were the ones who were left, since they weren’t at night and they weren’t on shifts. What was not specified? Well surely“Added Rodríguez. “It is a problem of motivation of the resolution, so the court agrees with the agents,” he valued.
But, What are the consequences of the failure? ‘Really, it assumes nothing. That objectivity and equality were not motivated when choosing those agents who had to participate in the device, ”Rodríguez concluded. «The ruling does not say that any act must be rolled back. It amends the plan to the City Council, yes, and it helps us to learn. Next time, it will be necessary to expressly motivate which are the criteria to select those agents who have to cover the special services due to the need for the security of the municipality ”.