The TSJ of Aragón rejects the compensated termination of the contract because there was no serious breach attributable to the employer in accordance with article 50 of the Workers' Statute. The violation of the right to digital disconnection lacks sufficient significance as it occurred with the tacit consent of the worker.

The appeal number 254/2025, presented by the plaintiff against the ruling issued by the Social Court of Huesca on December 19, 2024 with the intervention of the Public Prosecutor's Office, is resolved.

Mrs. Rosa, has been a laboratory assistant since October 2013 for a company in the chemical sector. As of December 2018, a bonus is recognized for substitutions of the laboratory manager. Although, on January 1, 2021, he was formally assigned the position of laboratory manager, included within group 5 of the Chemical Industries Convention. His functions included planning, supervision, preparation of bulletins, technical reports, coordination of laboratory personnel and constant attention to the plant's quality control processes.

In the work center there are established rotating shifts. The worker assumed continuous availability, even during her vacations and rest periods, answering calls and messages from the laboratory. Following a complaint, the Labor Inspection confirmed non-compliance with the right to digital disconnection contained in article 42.4 of the sectoral agreement.

Regarding vacations, the worker accumulated unused vacation days due to service needs. In 2020, she did not enjoy 18 days, which were financially paid in January 2021. In later years, the vacations were split up and were sometimes modified by the worker, taking into account the needs of the laboratory. He maintained telephone availability at all times.

On November 3, 2022, the worker began medical leave due to a mood disorder, derived from common contingencies, although there is an ongoing procedure requesting that its professional origin be recognized. After receiving medical discharge in April 2024, he requested the accumulation of untaken vacation days from 2022, 2023 and 2024. On May 7, 2024, he went on voluntary leave.

The lawsuit was ultimately dismissed., absolving the company of the claims made. Ms. Rosa filed an appeal. Both the company and the Prosecutor opposed the appeal.

The ruling analyzes the worker's request for termination of the contract under article 50 of the Workers' Statute, which requires a serious and culpable breach of business obligations for the compensated termination to proceed.

The following points are declared proven:

• The worker was promoted in 2021 to the position of laboratory manager, a position that requires greater dedication and permanent attention to the needs of the department, operational 365 days a year.
• Although it is proven that during the years 2021 and 2022 The worker received calls and messages outside of her working day or during her vacation, but her availability is stated in several emails.. In the workplace there was a certain complexity related to the organization of shifts.
• The contacts outside of working hours, as confirmed in the documentary evidence, were punctual, brief and not excessive., without reaching a frequency or intensity sufficient to be considered a serious violation.
• Regarding the right to digital disconnection, the Labor Inspection required the company to implement a protocol in accordance with the collective agreement, but the Court reasons that its absence does not represent a serious breach. Furthermore, it is stated that the right to disconnect is not absolute, allowing exceptional contacts, proportional and justified by the type of position.

The TSJ of Aragón recalls that article 20 bis of the Workers' Statute, introduced by Organic Law 3/2018,expressly recognizes the right of workers to digital disconnection. The precept establishes:

“ “Workers and public employees will have the right to digital disconnection in order to guarantee, outside of legally or conventionally established working time, respect for their rest time, permits and vacations, as well as their personal and family privacy.”

The same article imposes on employer the obligation to establish an internal policy aimed at all workers, including training and awareness-raising actions on the reasonable use of technological tools, with special attention to cases of teleworking or remote work.

In this case, it has been proven that the company did not have a formalized digital disconnection policy In accordance with this legal precept, such omission does not in itself have the seriousness required to justify the compensated termination of the employment contract. This deficiency, although susceptible to improvement, has not translated into systematic and abusive business conduct that has continuously and seriously violated the fundamental rights of the worker. There was express consent for his availability.

From the jurisprudential level, the ruling conforms to the reiterated doctrine of the Supreme Court on article 50.1.c) of the ET, which states that "The compensated termination of the contract requires a business breach that is serious, culpable and directly attributable to the employer, whether by action or omission, with a sufficient entity to break the legitimate confidence of the worker in compliance with the agreed conditions".

The Court considers that the calls and messages received outside of working hours were sporadic, of short duration, and in part due to the position of responsibility and trust occupied by the worker.. Therefore, the requirements of seriousness and direct imputability to the company required by jurisprudence to uphold the extinguishing claim with the right to compensation are not met.

Consequently, the Court concludes that the legal requirements for an indemnified contract termination are not met in accordance with article 50 ET and highlights that the availability was voluntarily assumed by the worker Furthermore, the documented contacts do not reflect serious business abuse or disregard, taking into account that the right Disconnection does not prevent exceptional contacts during rest periods, not excessive, necessary or unavoidable and proportionate to the type and conditions of the work activity and the position or responsibility performed.

The appeal filed by the worker is dismissed and the lower court ruling is confirmed.. An appeal is possible for unification of doctrine before the Supreme Court.