The Supreme Court (TS) has declared inadmissible the dismissal of the former deputy director of News at Telemadrid Jaime Treceño, who was removed from his position following the reform of the autonomous public entity undertaken by the regional government after the 2021 elections, compromising the independence of the Regional executive after the notable differences between Sol and the entity since the arrival of Isabel Díaz Ayuso to the regional presidency.
This is stated in a ruling, to which Europa Press had access, in which the Social Chamber declares the inadmissibility of the appeal filed by Radio Televisión Madrid against the ruling handed down by the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid (TSJM), dated October 17, 2022 and that declared the dismissal unfair.
The sentence comes after the High Court ratified that the dismissal of the former Telemadrid News Director Jon Ariztimuño Olague in July 2021 was also illegal and was obliged to compensate the journalist, who is now at Spanish Television.
The dismissal of both directors occurred within the framework of the reform of Telemadrid, with Law 1/2021, of July 9, which modified Law 8/2015 of Radio TV Madrid, carried out by Isabel Díaz Ayuso after the elections. of 2021 and which marked the complete change of the then management team of the regional chain.
Jaime Treceño provided services for the entity Radio TV Madrid SA with the category of deputy to the news director until the company terminated his contract due to withdrawal communicated by letter dated July 16, 2021 and as a result of the entry into force of Law 1/ 2021, of July 9, which modified Law 8/2015 of Radio TV Madrid. The contract that bound the parties was one of senior management.
The appealed ruling, which is now final, confirmed the lower court ruling that declared the dismissal inadmissible, considering that the employment relationship was not one of senior management but rather ordinary employment as can be deduced from the functions granted, inappropriate for a senior executive of the company, given the small amount of management acts and the non-direct dependence on the board of directors.
In short, according to the ruling, the former deputy director "did not hold powers inherent to the legal ownership of the company, his functions did not refer to its general objectives nor did he perform them with full autonomy and responsibility as he was a deputy to the news director."
