19 this letter, Alfredo Lagos del Campo had incurred in these grounds for dismissal. The General Manager of the company considered that the statements made by of Mr. Lagos del Campo regarding the “fraudulent and unlawful understanding” and “complicity” between the Management and the Director of the Participation Directorate was “particularly serious.”62 53. The company indicated that the opinions expressed in the interview, “in addition to constituting serious work-related misconduct, also constituted the offense of libel.” The company also informed Mr. Lagos del Campo that he should respond to the charges made against him. During that process, the company “exonerated” Mr. Lagos del Campo from coming to work, while “paying him his wages and any other benefits to which he was entitled.”63 As a result, Mr. Lagos del Campo was prohibited from entering the company on June 27, 1989, and this prevented him from attending the meeting that he himself had called, in his capacity as president of the Electoral Committee, with the other members of Committee to discuss the issue of a new election. 54. In a letter of June 30, 1989, addressed to the General Manager, Mr. Lagos del Campo sought to disprove the charges that had been brought in the notarized letter. In particular, Mr. Lagos del Campo indicated that: (a) it was not true that he had failed to comply with his workrelated obligations or incurred in serious insubordination, because he had always executed the work assigned to him scrupulously; (b) it was not true that he had incurred in “serious verbal misconduct” against the employer or the latter’s representatives, because his words had not directly addressed at the employer or with the intention to offend him; (c) since these were not repeat offenses and there had been no previous disciplinary sanction for similar offenses, the company should have proceeded in accordance with the provisions of the Internal Labor Regulations applying, first, the lesser sanctions established by these regulations; (d) it was not true that he had stated that there had been a “fraudulent and unlawful understanding” with the Director of the Participation Directorate; (e) it was evident that his statements had been distorted; (f) also, the notarized letter sought to ascribe disciplinary sanctions in the exercise of his functions, whereas this was a conspicuous act of interference in the internal activities of the Industrial Community, and (g) the accusations made were an attack on his right to freedom of expression and to impart ideas.64 55. In a note of July 1, 1989,65 the company informed Mr. Lagos del Campo of the decision to dismiss him from his employment, because “[…] he had not disproved the charges that had been brought against him in the notarized letter of June 26 […].” It considered that the dismissal was justified, in particular, because he had committed the serious offenses that were causes for dismissal under paragraphs (a) and (h) of article 5 of Law 24514 of 1986, regulating the right to job security, which considered as serious offenses “serious verbal misconduct against his employer, its representatives, and his fellow workers,” based on the statements he made when he gave the interview.66 In particular, the company argued that Mr. Lagos had committed a serious offense by accusing the Board of using “blackmail” and “coercion,” of having an understanding with the Participation Directorate of the Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Commerce, have the intention of “liquidating” the Industrial Community, and seeking to “influence” the Industrial Community elections by exerting pressure on a specific group of workers. Cf. CEPER-PIRELLI. Notarized letter of June 26, 1989 (evidence file, annex 4 to the State’s answering brief, ff. 1457 and 1458). 62 Cf. CEPER-PIRELLI. Notarized letter of June 26, 1989 (evidence file, annex 4 to the State’s answering brief, ff. 1457 and 1458). 63 Cf. Exculpatory communication presented to the company by Mr. Lagos del Campo on June 30, 1989. (evidence file, annex 5, f.1460). 64 Cf. CEPER-PIRELLI. Notarized letter of July 1, 1989, with receipt stamp of notary Javier Aspauza Gamarra, of July 3, 1989 (evidence file, annex 6 to the Merits Report, ff.15 and 16). 65 66 Law 24514 established four causes for justified dismissal.