Author: Laura Valderrama.
The flexibility of work environments will always be a challenge, particularly in those events that the worker due to a medical diagnosis of mental health and comprehensive accreditation certification therapeutic process with the recommendation of companion pet accompaniment and emotional support and that this aspect positively favors the worker. the patient’s medical diagnosis.
Regarding this issue, recently, Fifth Chamber of the Council of State with file 73001-23-33-000-20222-0037-01 of November 24, 2022, module on the protection of the fundamental rights of employees to health mental ordering his employer to allow the employee to bring his Golden Retriever pet with the conditions determined for his access to the workplace.
The previous constitutional protection was given because it was considered an appropriate measure for the judicial official linked to a criminal court in Ibagué, given that said therapeutic process of accompanying his emotional support pet allowed him to remedy the problems of severe anxiety and depression diagnosed and prevent stress and other circumstances that alter your emotional state.
The employee had tried to attend the workplace accompanied by his pet, but the sectional executive management of Ibagué has been reluctant to respond to the request that leads to the filing of a guardianship due to violation of the fundamental health rights in conditions of dignity and work. Although it was denied by the Administrative Court of Tolima, it denied the protection for not proving the violation of fundamental rights by not allowing the pet to enter the court and not proving requirements on the part of the plaintiff, attending the workplace with his pet is considered as An appropriate measure, including the certification of the guardian’s psychotherapist, was not the ideal means to demonstrate the appropriateness of the treatment and only protects the right to petition by not proving the response of the petitioner to the request made by the petitioner.
The guardianship actor who is not satisfied with the decision of the constitutional judge files an appeal for the purpose of review and protection by the State Council of his invoked fundamental rights, in which they were protected by providing the employer with rules for the entry of the pet into the workplace with the respective periodic vaccination checks and does not cause negative consequences to other people who attend the workplace and the individual responsibilities of the pet owner in any possible damages that may arise.
Referring to this pronouncement in the seat of guardianship, although it has inter-parte effects, its ratio decidendi is binding to take into account in these aspects, it would generate challenges and controls to be evaluated from the measures of the health and safety system at work.
- Fifth Chamber of the Council of State with file 73001-23-33-000-20222-0037-01 of November 24, 2022