The ruling unifies doctrine and recalls that the report of the prevention service does not by itself legitimize the termination of the contract.

The appeal for cassation for the unification of doctrine is resolved, against ruling no. 592/2024 issued on July 10, 2024 by the Social Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid in appeal no. 236/2024, filed against the ruling of the Social Court no. 12 of Madrid, of October 30, 2023 (orders no. 834/2023).

The worker provided services as a teleoperator, with seniority since 12-8-2014 and an indefinite part-time contract. The employment relationship was governed by the Contact Center agreement. 

On June 29, 2023, the company communicated the termination of the contract, with effect from that same day, for objective reasons, alleging supervening ineptitude under art. 52 a) of the Workers' Statute (E.T.).

On June 15, 2023, after a period of temporary disability of two years, the external prevention service carried out a medical examination of the worker and issued a report with the result of "NOT SUITABLE" for the performance of his position, due to the inability to remain seated for more than four continuous hours and to attend to tasks with minimal requirements for attention, concentration and response to clients. He presented symptoms of anxiety, behavioral changes, headaches, insomnia, memory loss, neuralgia and a depressive state.

On June 22, 2023, a new medical examination was carried out to perform a position in Administration, with the same result of "NOT SUITABLE". 

The Social Court No. 12 of Madrid upheld the claim for dismissal and declared it inadmissible.,  condemning the defendant company to reinstatement, with the payment of processing salaries from the date of dismissal or compensation of 9,377.27 euros to be deducted from the amount already received of 5,805.64 euros.

Appeal filed by the company,the Social Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid revoked the sentence and declared the origin of the extinction decision.

The plaintiff formalized an appeal for the unification of doctrine, alleging contradiction between the appealed sentence and that issued by TS No. 177/2022 of February 23, 2022 (remedy 3259/20).

The question when solving It consisted of determining whether the company had complied with its obligation to readapt and relocate to another position compatible with the worker's status, declared "UNFIT" by the prevention service, and whether said action had been duly proven in the process. The Public Prosecutor's Office issued a report in the sense that it considered the appeal inadmissible.

The Court starts from the examination of art. 52 a) E.T., which allows termination due to supervening ineptitude; of art. 53 ET, relating to the formal requirements of objective dismissal and art. 108 of the Law Regulating Social Jurisdiction (LRJS), on the judicial classification of dismissal. Preventive regulations are added (arts. 14 and 22 LPRL), Directive 2000/78/EC, the CJEU doctrine on reasonable adjustments and the jurisprudential evolution of the Supreme Court itself.

The Chamber appreciates the existence of contradiction between the appealed sentence and the contrast one as established in art. 219 LRJS, since in both cases a declaration of NOT SUITABLE by the prevention service and a contractual termination due to unsuitability coincide, the central question being to determine whether said report is sufficient to justify the dismissal. While in the appealed ruling the TSJ Madrid declared the dismissal justified based solely on the report, without requiring proof of relocation or adaptation of the position, the contrast ruling (STS 177/2022) declared the dismissal unfair, as it was not proven that the company had attempted to relocate or adapt the position.

Therefore, the unification of doctrine proceeds. For this, the Room   analyzes the applicable jurisprudential doctrine. The violation of art is reported. 52 a) E.T. and the Supreme Court ruling 177/2022.

The Chamber recalls the concept of supervening ineptitude according to STS 177/2022, involves the loss of physical or mental abilities necessary for the position. It must be permanent, not attributable to the worker's bad faith. It may arise from functional limitations or loss of qualifying requirements (driver's license when this is necessary to perform the position or loss of qualifying title to carry out an activity).

With respect to the function of the prevention reports These are technical reports that prove physical or mental limitations of the worker that affect the performance of the job.  They have informative and probative value, but are not binding, nor do they constitute sufficient evidence to terminate the contract.. A generic “not suitable” report is insufficient.

When the worker's limitation may constitute a disability or comparable situation, The company must evaluate and apply reasonable adjustments to the position, offer relocation to another compatible position, or, where appropriate, prove that such measures represent an excessive burden, placing the burden of proof on the company, not the worker.

The Supreme Court, relying on STS 177/2022 and the CJEU Ruling of January 8, 2024 (C‑631/22, Ca Na Negreta) and on STS 557/2024 and Law 2/2025 (although not in force at the time of the events, providing guidance for the interpretation of reasonable adjustments), reinforces the requirement of maintaining employment whenever possible, rejecting the automatic termination of the contract.

In the specific case, the Supreme Court concludes that the supervening ineptitude does exist, but there is no evidence that the company has tried to adapt the position, has sought relocation and demonstrated that the adjustments were impossible or excessive. The TSJ ruling considered that the “NOT SUITABLE” report was sufficient, a criterion that the Supreme Court rejects. Therefore, the required evidentiary burden was not met, preventing objective termination from being considered justified.

Failed:

The appeal for unification of doctrine is upheld. He marries and annuls the ruling of the TSJ Madrid and confirms the ruling of the Social Court No. 12 of Madrid that declares the dismissal unfair.