The Court appreciates the existence of a pre-employment contract, proven through WhatsApp messages, and grants compensation of more than 8,000 euros, even if the contract had not been formalized in writing.

HE partially estimates the appeal filed against the sentence handed down by the Social Court No. 9 of Murcia, in proceedings 860/2022 on claim of right and amount.

The plaintiff had been providing services under a temporary contract in a freight transport company since November 2021. On March 18, 2022 submitted his voluntary resignation because a company had offered him a position as an accounting clerk. The vacancy was published on a job portal in which the plaintiff had registered.

Had conversations on WhatsApp with a representative of the new company, who confirmed that she was interested in hiring her. On March 17, the plaintiff reported that she would speak with her boss about joining on Monday, March 28, receiving a reply "it would be perfect." However, on March 22, the company informed him that finally They had decided to give the position to a family member and that they would not hire her. The company later hired another person.

What were the consequences?

The plaintiff was not able to access unemployment benefits, since her leave was voluntary and she was left without income. In addition, he suffered a deterioration in his health (chronic migraines aggravated by stress) proven by medical reports.

What were the claims claimed in the lawsuit?

The plaintiff requested compensation for economic damages (lost profits) and moral damages (psychological and stress), understanding that the defendant company had failed to fulfill a contract offer. 

What did the Social Court No. 9 of Murcia resolve?

The Court dismissed the claim considering that the defendant company had not formalized any contract and, therefore, there was no contractual breach or obligation to compensate.

The plaintiff appealed and the TSJ of Murcia reviewed the case.

The Court considered that the plaintiff had reached an agreement with the company to join, with the conditions reflected in the job offer. The day after reaching the agreement, he submitted his voluntary resignation. Later, the company notified her via WhatsApp that it could not hire her because it had to give the job to a family member, although later it did hire another person for a similar position.

The Chamber, applying doctrine of the Supreme Court on employment pre-contracts, concluded that Yes, there was a pre-contract or promise of contract. Given the existence of said agreement, the obligation of the parties arose to act in accordance with the good faith, and the failure to formalize the contract for reasons attributable only to the company may generate the right to a compensation for damages, as long as it is accredited.

In this case, the Court considered it proven that the parties had reached a basic agreement,  All that remains is to formalize the incorporation date and sign the contract. It was proven that the company had violated good faith in hiring e unilaterally failed to fulfill the job offer.

Therefore, non-compliance entitles the worker to receive compensation for the economic loss and moral damage suffered.

The worker, who requested 12,566.65 euros for lost profits and 6,250 euros for moral damages, including the impossibility of collecting unemployment benefits after voluntary discharge.

The Court breaks down the compensable concepts and distinguishes that, since it is a temporary contract whose duration was not exactly stated,it could not be determined with certainty how much he had failed to perceive. 

Therefore, it recognizes as lost profits the wages for the 11 days between March 18 and 28 (768.79 euros). Furthermore, it includes as lost profits the salary that the worker would have received if the company had complied with the pre-agreement, six months' salary, equivalent to 6,158.69 euros, since it was proven that the company hired another person for the same position for at least that time.

Regarding the moral damage,  are recognized 2,000 euros, as the damage derived from the loss of employment, job uncertainty and the worsening of their migraines is considered proven.

Failed:

The TSJ of Murcia condemns the company to pay 8,927.28 euros as compensation, without imposition of costs.