A Lusaflux worker in Lagos after giving a Google star and making criticism and injury to the company. The courts validated the dismissal.
Constantine was hired in May 2024 as an assembler apprentice/machine adjuster at Lusaflux in Lagos, Algarve.
A – UNIP Water Treatment Systems, Lda. It is a company for the sale, installation and maintenance of water treatment systems.
But the experience in this worker’s company seems to have been unpleasant.
As the (JN) tells, he classified with a star the company page on Google and wrote a negative commentwhere it said that there was competitors to sell cheaper and better qualityand that the boss I didn’t pay well to the technicians and had mental problems.
“I am a technician of this company and I do not advise you to visit it. Your previous technician is of Muslim origin, and has a loving relationship with the owner (…) the quality of Used parts is the worst you find in the market. It’s expensive. Leroy Merlin is cheaper and has better quality. The technicians are not paid correctly, and to make matters worse, it has mental problems, ”says JN.
Following these accusations and negative criticisms, the worker was fired; and the Court of Évora’s relationship gave reason to the employer.
Conflicting behaviors
According to the recent judgment of the relationship, quoted by JN, until June, the defendant demonstrated commitment and dedication, but from July, without justification, he adopted conflicting and disrespectful behaviors to the legal representative, colleagues and clients of the company.
Constantine will also have refused orders, provided incorrect information to clients, ordered reparations without authorization and made technical decisions for which he had no formation or authorization.
The Court states that it is responsible for the employee “to deal with urbanity, respect and probity the representatives of this [empresa]as well as protecting the good image of its employer (…) it is, however, evident that the author, through the message he published on Google, with the use of a vulgar and rude language, defined its employer entity“He accused.
“The defamatory expressions that the author has released made objectively impossible to maintain the work relationship, by a justified breakdown of the defendant’s confidence in the plaintiff, as well as his future behavior,” they concluded.
