\n
The Administrative Litigation Division of the High Court of Justice of Cantabria has rejected a company's appeal against the decision of the General Treasury of Social Security to cancel the registration of a worker whose contract was signed one month before requesting maternity benefits.<\/span><\/p>\n The Court of Appeal thus confirms the decision of the Administrative Litigation Court No. 2 of Santander, which accepted the reasons given by Social Security to annul the registration of this worker.<\/span><\/p>\n According to the ruling, the Social Security decision is based on the report drawn up by the Labour Inspectorate, which found, among other facts, that the woman was the only employee that the company had hired since its founding.<\/span><\/p>\n Furthermore, the contractor \u2013 a law firm \u2013 was unable to specify the functions it performed \u201csince these were administrative jobs in general.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n In addition, he did not employ any other person during the employee's maternity leave, nor afterwards, when the woman decided to take a leave of absence to care for her child.<\/span><\/p>\n Finally, the Labour Inspectorate found that the company paid minimum wage contributions, even though the collective agreement for law firms and higher wage rates were applicable.<\/span><\/p>\n From all these circumstances, the Court points out, "it can be deduced that the hiring and registration with Social Security were simulated and fictitious, and have no other cause or purpose than obtaining maternity benefits by fraud of law and then moving to a leave of absence for child care with the benefits that this entails."<\/span><\/p>\n Remember that the controls exercised by Social Security are very strict with regard to fraud, so it is advisable<\/p>\n \t<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The Administrative Litigation Division of the High Court of Justice of Cantabria has rejected the appeal of a company against the decision of the General Treasury of Social Security to cancel the registration of a worker whose contract was signed one month before requesting maternity benefits. In this way, the court [\u2026]<\/p>","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":47365,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-47364","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-noticias"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/aseryde.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47364","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/aseryde.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/aseryde.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aseryde.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aseryde.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=47364"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/aseryde.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47364\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aseryde.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/47365"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/aseryde.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=47364"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aseryde.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=47364"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aseryde.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=47364"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}