From the law firm of Mr. David Labrador Gallardo, my expert services were requested to prepare a report concerning a class action lawsuit filed before the Administrative Litigation Chamber of the High Court of Justice of Madrid.
The plaintiff collective consisted of IT personnel belonging to Penitentiary Institutions (IIPP) and physically assigned to each of the state-managed penitentiary centers. This collective alleged that they had been continuously performing, at the request of higher authorities, IT tasks of a higher category than statutorily established, which included assuming responsibilities.
In this context, my professional services were contracted to prepare an expert report that would illustrate to the Chamber the characteristics and differences in training requirements for access to groups B and C1 regarding IT Systems knowledge, as well as the unforeseen circumstances concerning the tasks entrusted to and performed by the plaintiff collective.
Extensive and varied documentation was made available to me, which highlighted the specific tasks carried out by the IIPP IT Monitors collective. These tasks ranged from communications infrastructure to the administration (hardware and software) of corporate servers, desktop equipment, IT applications, and systems. The expert report provided broadly described the IT equipment and user base existing in the Penitentiary Centers, whose management fell to the IT Monitors collective. The catalog of software administered by the IIPP IT Monitors collective was also listed and described.
The analysis of the documentation linked to the different IT applications evidenced a degree of responsibility on the part of the IT Monitors located in the various penitentiary centers. In addition to the tasks assigned to and carried out by the plaintiff collective, there was a de facto recognition by IIPP, as a training course was periodically offered specifically to those members of this collective who had obtained a position for the first time in the last competitive examination.
After aligning all aspects of the report with the lawyer, my expert report was submitted and included in the judicial procedure. The opposing party, defended by the State Attorney’s Office, did not question the terms contained in my expert report; however, they declined the practice of the evidence and, therefore, my ratification.
