Post by account_disabled on Mar 12, 2024 5:19:45 GMT
The TSJ of Madrid assumes the argument contained in the appealed court ruling on this point, which states that it has not been proven that the actor carried out the operations described in the dismissal letter (downloading documents from the cloud and flown from them to his personal cloud), and yes and it is only proven that he had six documents in a section of the cloud of his private Google Drive account , however, their content is not recorded and therefore does not know whether it is confidential or not.
"The truth is that the trial judge has given greater probative Email Data 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 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.
"The truth is that the trial judge has given greater probative Email Data 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 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.
