The Court considers that the company did not adequately justify the termination of the contract, since there was no real and objective cause to dismiss the worker.

The ruling of the Superior Court of Justice resolves the appeal No. 363/2024 filed by both the defendant company and the worker D. Estanislao, against the ruling handed down by the Social Court No. 09 of Madrid on October 5, 2023.

Mr. Estanislao, father of 4 children aged between 11 and 2 years, served as associate management director in a company dedicated to real estate investment in Europe since 11/24/2022. Days before, on November 21, 2022, the company informed the entire workforce of the restructuring by email. On the same day of dismissal, the worker requested to telework due to family problems. Although he was called to a meeting, his superior told him that he preferred his attendance in person to the meeting called at 12:00 p.m. Two minutes before the start of the meeting, at 11:58, the worker sent by email a request to reduce his work day to care for minor children starting in January 2023, specifying that he wanted to reduce one hour at the end of the work day, being open to adapting to another schedule according to the needs of the department.

At the 12:00 p.m. meeting, Mr. Estanislao was dismissed with effect from the same day, November 24, 2022 for objective, organizational and production reasons.(art. 52 c) of the ET), due to a comprehensive reorganization of the department to adapt the structure to the needs of the business and ensure profitability. The company made available the corresponding compensation of 20 days per year of service with a limit of 12 monthly payments, amounting to the amount of 9,120.35 euros.

In instance, the dismissal was declared void, motivated by the application of the automatic protection of article 55.5 b) of the Workers' Statute (ET), which guarantees nullity in cases in which the dismissal affects fundamental rights, or when the worker exercises conciliation rights such as reduction of working hours due to legal custody.

The parties filed an appeal. The company argued that the lower court ruling carried out an interpretation that was not in accordance with the law. of the applicable precepts, considering that The worker requested a reduction in working hours in order to protect himself against an imminent dismissal., since he had prior knowledge of the restructuring and the scheduled meeting with his superior. In the company's opinion, this behavior constituted legal fraud, since the worker used the right to a reduction in working hours for the sole purpose of protecting himself against dismissal, which the company considered an abuse of rights.

On the other hand,The worker filed an appeal requesting that the nullity of the dismissal be confirmed and, additionally, the payment of compensation for damages of €30,000., alleging the violation of fundamental rights.

The TSJ of Madrid analyzed the origin of the annulment invoked by the worker in accordance with article 55.5 b) of the ET, which provides that a dismissal caused by prohibited discrimination or violation of fundamental rights will be void. The appealed ruling considers that the assumptions of article 55.5 b) ET constitute objective causes of nullity that determine its classification automatically, without the need to prove discrimination.

However, the Chamber concludes that In the dismissal of the worker there is no violation of fundamental rights, since the request for a reduction in hours was presented just before the dismissal letter was delivered and the company had made the decision to terminate the relationship before the request for a reduction in hours.  Furthermore, it is considered proven that the worker had prior knowledge of the possibility of being fired and that the request for a reduction was not intended for family conciliation, but rather for the creation of a protection mechanism against dismissal., a strategy on the part of Mr. Estanislao to avoid the termination of the contract.

For all these reasons, the sentence declares the inadmissibility of the dismissal and orders the company to choose, within a period of five days, between reinstatement of the worker with payment of processing salaries or payment of compensation of 15,846.48 euros, discounting the sum already received by the worker as compensation for objective causes. The amount was calculated in accordance with the Law on Infractions and Sanctions in the Social Order (LISOS), arguing that the company had violated the right to equal treatment and effective judicial protection.

The worker's appeal for additional compensation is dismissed, since the nullity of the dismissal has not been recognized and the violation of fundamental rights has not been verified. The Court concludes that the declaration of inadmissibility already entails the corresponding compensation, so compensation for damages is not appropriate.