We review the ruling of the Supreme Court of March 22, 2023 (rcud 1493/2020), in which the appeal filed by a worker who requested the compensated termination of his contract for non-payment of wages is rejected under article 50 of the Workers' Statute.

The worker filed a lawsuit against the company for which he worked for non-payment of salaries corresponding to the months of January to May 2018. And requesting the compensated termination of his contract based on article 50 of the ET.

The worker had submitted his voluntary resignation to work in another company before the lower court ruling was issued, this issue being decisive for the causes covered by article 50 ET to arise. It is necessary to claim termination that the relationship between the company and the worker “remains alive” even though a legal process is being carried out to resolve some type of labor dispute, the employment relationship must continue to exist and the terms and conditions of the employment contract must continue to be respected by both parties.

It is important to note that, in some specific situations, the law allows the worker to terminate the employment contract alleging serious breaches by the employer, without having to wait for the completion of the judicial process. But from what we see in this ruling that would not be the case.

The Social Court No. 2 of Madrid issued a ruling partially upholding the claim, condemning the company to pay (€31,946.3) plus 10% interest for late payment, this amount corresponding to the salaries not received before the termination of the employment relationship, thus absolving the defendant of the other claims formulated in the claim" (compensated termination of the employment relationship).

The worker appealed the lower court ruling before the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid, and it confirmed the lower court ruling.

Not satisfied with the ruling of the TSJ of Madrid, the worker formalized an appeal for the unification of doctrine. The court accepted the appeal for processing and a date was set for voting and ruling.

The Supreme Court argues that both the appealed ruling and the one used as a contrast ruling imply that the workers voluntarily ceased to provide services on behalf of another company before the date of the ruling. This is the only coincidence and there are other substantial circumstances that must be considered to assess the true severity of the damages in each case.

What this ruling means is that if a worker communicates his voluntary resignation and goes to work for another company while a procedure for non-payment or continued delay in the payment of salary is being processed, it is not possible to resort to art. 50 of the ET to request the compensated termination of the contract, except in exceptional cases.

Failed: The appeal for unification of doctrine filed by the worker is dismissed, declaring the finality of the sentence handed down by the Social Court No. 2 of Madrid.