The admissibility of the dismissal is declared as it is carried out in accordance with the law, despite a worker being hired just before carrying out an objective dismissal, considering in this case the amortization of the job.

The Supreme Court, in its ruling no. 732/2023 of October 10 resolves the appeal for unification of doctrine no. 3103/2021 filed against the ruling of the Superior Court of Justice of Valencia, appeal no. 667/2020, formulated against ruling of the Social Court no. 16 of Valencia cars 266/2020.

The origin of the litigation occurs when, with effect from January 16, 2020, a worker hired with the professional category of Economic-Financial Director and who additionally performed administrative functions is dismissed, alleging economic and organizational causes based on article 52 c) of the ET.

In December 2019, prior to the dismissal, a new Organization Director was hired and subsequently, on January 27, 2020, the company hired an Administration Technician. Between February and May of the same year, eight workers were fired for the same reasons.

The lower court ruling declared the dismissal admissible, completely dismissing the claim and subsequently the appeal filed before the TSJ of Valencia was resolved by partially upholding the claim, declaring the dismissal to be inadmissible.

The Court maintains that the economic causes expressed in the dismissal letter have been accredited and proven, therefore what is questioned is whether workers who have assumed, among others, functions performed by the dismissed worker were hired before and after the dismissal. Furthermore, in its analysis it interprets the existence of a contradiction between the contested sentences and the contrasting one. This is because the workers who assumed the functions of the dismissed worker were providing services in the company with a temporary contract that was transformed into a permanent contract and were not new workers as in the case at hand.  

The TS states that it is up to the jurisdictional body to verify whether the causes of the termination decision are justified and within the law. Furthermore, they must decide on the reasonableness and proportionality of the measure in terms of business management, with the businessman's freedom of management in the organization of the company's human resources not being subject to judicial control.

Consequently, the cassation appeal is resolved, declaring the finality of the lower court ruling and annulling the one issued by the TSJV, noting that "Having been proven that the updating of the economic cause affects the actor's job, there is no violation of any fundamental right of the worker whose contract was terminated for economic reasons and there is no factual element that allows us to maintain with a minimum indicative basis that instead of a amortization of a job what has been intended is to replace one job with another, the termination decision analyzed here cannot be classified as a lack of reasonableness, since the business action falls within its freedom. management; and, in any case, it was up to the actor to prove this lack of reasonableness by proving facts with the necessary precision, since the company complies, in principle, with the burden incumbent on it by proving the existence of the cause and its connection with the extinguishing measure adopted.".