[ad_1]
In 2017, a man who turned 15 years working for the largest oil company in the country, Ecopetrol, asked this company to recognize one of the daughters of his permanent partner as a member of his family.
In his petition, the man explained that since January 2014 he formed a de facto marital union with his partner, from which a son was born. But she already had two daughters from previous relationships, one of them 14 years old and who is financially dependent on the Ecopetrol worker.
Therefore, in addition to including among its beneficiaries your youngest child, he also asked Ecopetrol to accept his stepdaughter.
(Read also: The 162 court questions when admitting a lawsuit against the crime of abortion).
However, through the Ecopetrol SA Benefits Management Coordinator, the company responded to the employee that the adolescent was not part of the worker’s family group –because she was not his biological daughter–, Therefore, he could not access the services provided by the company on behalf of its Collective Bargaining Agreement, which is renewed every four years.
Ecopetrol has started from a restrictive interpretation, by excluding as beneficiaries the stepchildren who demonstrate their real belonging to the employee’s family nucleus
Upon receiving several refusals, the employee filed a guardianship that has just been accepted by the Constitutional Court, which – with a presentation by Judge Diana Fajardo – ordered Ecopetrol to recognize the stepchildren and stepdaughters as family members of its employees, so that they enjoy the health, education and social protection benefits to which the descendants of the workers of that company are entitled.
In the first instance, the guardianship had been accepted in favor of the employee, but then a decision of the Superior Court of Bucaramanga reversed that decision and denied his requests. During this process, Ecopetrol said that “just coexistence alone does not generate affective ties per se that give rise to a de facto family ”.
However, the Constitutional Court considers that Ecopetrol did violate the rights to equality, health and the family of the adolescent by denying her access to its special services.
(You may be interested in: The fight for the secret files of the case against Mario Montoya).
The high court reminded Ecopetrol that families, in their different forms of configuration, such as a de facto marital union in which there are stepchildren, are protected by the Constitution. Thus, the children of these unions, those that occur outside of them, those procreated naturally or with scientific assistance and those of nurture “have equal rights and duties,” said the high court.
The high court reminded Ecopetrol that families, in their different forms of configuration, such as a de facto marital union in which there are stepchildren, are protected
For this reason, the high court ordered Ecopetrol to include the minor in its benefits plan, affirming that the oil company discriminated against her, since the family bond that she has with the employee was demonstrated.
In any case, says the Court, for a stepson to access these benefits of the Ecopetrol Collective Agreement, it must be shown that they are actually part of the employee’s family nucleus, Therefore, it must prove the continuous coexistence, the ties of affection, solidarity, protection and mutual respect.
The high court also assured that It is not the first time that you have studied Ecopetrol employee tutelage in which they claim that the benefits of this company are not guaranteed to their stepchildren.
(We invite you to read; For being macho, the Attorney General’s Office asks to knock down the Labor Code apart).
The first time was in 2013, when the Court ordered to include a girl, the daughter of an employee’s wife, in its special plans, because by leaving her out Ecopetrol was doing “A discriminatory reading” of its Collective Agreement.
The same happened in another ruling in 2015, when the Court studied the case of a man who claimed because Ecopetrol had refused to include his 16 and 20-year-old stepdaughters, who were financially dependent on him, in its benefit plan. In that case, the Court said that Ecopetrol made an “arbitrary differentiation” by excluding the two young women.
JUSTICE
Twitter: @JusticiaET
[ad_2]
