The Court rules out retaliation or discrimination and remembers that corporate ius variandi protects changes in workplace when they do not alter essential elements of the employment relationship. 

The appeal 614/2025 against the ruling of the Social Court No. 5 of La Coruña, procedure 722/2024 for substantial modification of working conditions, is resolved. 

The worker is security guard who worked in the "acudas" service.  The company you transfer to another work center(the old prison of A Coruña), where I didn't need to use a vehicle. The company motivated the change due to loss of confidence due to two previous traffic accidents (April and August 2024) with the emergency service vehicle. 

The worker challenges the decision before the Social Jurisdiction alleging that the change was a substantial modification of working conditions (MSCT). He also denounced a possible retaliation for previous complaints and claims, thereby violating the fundamental right to compensation. 

At first instance: The judge dismissed the claim and the worker appealed, requesting annulment of the proceedings and violation of fundamental rights.

Was the appeal admitted?

The appeal was admitted only in part, although the sentence is not appealable just because it is an MSCT despite claiming an amount greater than €3,000, the appeal is admitted because a violation of fundamental rights was alleged.

The annulment of actions was rejected. What were the reasons? 

For nullity to be declared, certain requirements must be met: 

• Violation of essential procedural rule.
• That has caused real helplessness. 

In this case: 

• The right of defense was not prevented.
• Not admitting a final procedure does not generate defenselessness, since the judge has the power, not the obligation, to accept it (art. 88.1 LRJS). 

What was the legal complaint? 

Violation of articles 41 ET, 138 LRJS, and articles 14, 15 and 24 CE, as well as art. 9 of Law 15/2022 on Equal Treatment and Non-Discrimination. 

The art. 41.1 ET considers as MSCT the modifications that affect the working day, schedule or shift regime, remuneration level.

The jurisprudence(STS 6/15/2021, and others)distinguishes between substantial modifications, which must cause harm to the worker, understood as those that significantly alter fundamental elements of the employment relationship (category, functions...)and accidental modifications, which are protected by the corporate ius variandi and the power of management. 

A change of workplace without a change of residence constitutes an accidental modification of the working conditions that falls within the organizational power of the employer..

In this case the TSJ of Galicia reasons: 

• The worker's category, functions or salary are not altered.
• The business measure responds to the loss of confidence due to vehicle accidents (4/8/2024 and 8/3/2024).
• There is no data that proves discrimination or violation of the principle of indemnity, since the change order was issued on 8/26/2024, and the complaints and claims date back much earlier. Furthermore, there is no evidence of discriminatory treatment or direct retaliation towards the plaintiff worker.

Regarding the possible violation of fundamental rights, and in particular the principle of indemnity, the Court recalls that the burden of proof is reversed (arts. 96.1 and 181.2 LRJS; doctrine of the Constitutional Court), it is up to the worker to provide reasonable evidence of the reported violation and the company must prove that the reasons for the measure respond to objective causes and are unrelated to the alleged violation. 

Additionally, to prove retaliation, the following must be present: 

a) Exercise of right by the worker.

b) Adverse business conduct.

c) Causal connection (usually assessed by temporal proximity and comparative criteria with other workers in a similar situation).

In this case: 

• There is no temporal proximity between the complaints and the business measure.
• There is no evidence of discriminatory treatment with respect to other workers, even in the same service, who have also filed legal claims while maintaining their activity.
• The business measure is duly justified. The worker was assigned to a department in which the use of the vehicle was essential, but after the previous accidents the company decided to transfer him to a service where this tool was no longer necessary, motivating the change in the loss of confidence in his driving.

For all this,The appeal was dismissed and the lower court ruling was confirmed.