“The dismissal was an illegitimate reaction to the employee's previous claims, violating his fundamental right to effective judicial protection.”
The appeal for the unification of doctrine is resolved, against the ruling of the TSJ of Extremadura No. 5464/2023, formulated against the ruling of the Social Court No. 5 of Badajoz with case number 730/2022.
The worker, Jesús Miguel, was providing services as a driver since August 16, 2021.
On July 6, 2022, Jesús Miguel refused to perform additional service, arguing that his shift had already ended. The company had to mobilize another vehicle to complete the service, which generated an incident that was formalized on August 2.
On September 9, a disciplinary file was opened that concluded with his dismissal on September 27, 2022. Although the worker did not deny the facts, he justified his actions by pointing out that that day his work day was 11 hours and 59 minutes, exceeding the established day by 3 hours.
Jesús Miguel repeatedly complained to the company about errors in its payroll, especially in the payment of overtime, and also told the company that it was failing to comply with other obligations related to the working day established in the applicable Collective Agreement (II Collective Agreement for the transportation of the sick and injured by ambulance in the Autonomous Community of Extremadura). Given the lack of resolution of her claims, she reported the company to the Labor Inspection, maintaining continuous communication with the assigned inspector, and was even informed of her dismissal.
In instance The dismissal was declared unfair.The worker appealed before the TSJ of Extremadura, which dismissed the appeal, confirming the ruling of the Social Court.
Mr. Jesús Miguel formalized the appeal for the unification of doctrine, arguing the contradiction between the appealed sentence and the one issued by the Social Chamber of the TSJ of the Basque Country, of September 14, 2004, appeal 1350/2004.
The planned issue It consisted of determining whether the dismissal should be classified as null and void for violating their fundamental rights, specifically the guarantee of indemnity.
The Supreme Court declared the dismissal void, considering that the company violated the worker's fundamental right to effective judicial protection in its aspect of guarantee of indemnity. This principle protects the worker from retaliation for taking judicial or extrajudicial actions, such as reporting labor breaches or going to the Labor Inspection. In this case, Jesús Miguel had reported irregularities in his working hours and payroll, in addition to communicating the dismissal to the inspection.The worker provided sufficient evidence that the dismissal was retaliation, due to their continuous complaints and their complaints to the Labor Inspection.The company failed to demonstrate that the dismissal responded solely to serious contractual breaches.
The failure upheld the appeal filed by the worker, revoked the lower court ruling and declared the dismissal null and void, considering that it was retaliation for exercising his labor rights, in violation of his fundamental right to effective judicial protection and the guarantee of indemnity. As a consequence, the immediate reinstatement of the worker was ordered, with the payment of the wages lost until his reinstatement. In addition, the company was ordered to compensate the worker with 6,000 euros for the violation of his fundamental rights, recognizing that the dismissal was an illegitimate reaction due to the employee's previous claims.
