this Supreme Court He served his sentence and overturned the ‘no fire’ doctrine Approved by the Government to limit layoffs in case of initial alarm. The high court is clarifying its doctrine in the face of a proliferation of interpretations of a rule that has been heatedly prepared by the initial impact of covid and has already been criticized judicially for being unclear. Magistrates of the fourth chamber, less positive comments for the employee and more tolerant towards the companyThey actually gave a guarantee of dismissal in exchange for severance pay. But beyond the legal debate about who is right and who is wrong, what impact will this penalty have on workers and companies involved in legal disputes over ‘prohibited firing’?
The rule, approved on March 28, 2020, suppressed cases of coronavirus in companies’ businesses as a justifiable reason for layoffs. So, for example, the owner of a bar couldn’t fire a waiter because the Government closed his business and stopped billing. Or a laundromat could not lay off a worker because its main customer was hotels and because of international mobility restrictions it had no customers. The impact of Covid was not a valid argument for termination. “What happens when a company fires a worker for no reason? Well, according to the Labor Code, this is an unfair dismissal, not null and void. Norm did not determine the consequences a company would face due to dismissal. , because this is only possible in cases that are expressly included in the Workers’ Statute”, analyzes employment lawyer Robert Gutiérrez.
In other words, this is what the Supreme Court said: the layoffs that covid is discussing should not really be unfair, they should be unfair layoffs. What is the difference between one and the other? Vacant dismissal forces the company to reinstate the worker and award infringement compensation on a case-by-case basis. On the other hand, unfair dismissal is less protective and falls into the hands of the company. reinstate or pay compensation worked 33 days a year for dismissal. The company often opts for layoffs. What the Supreme Court decision does is approve layoffs (worked 20 days a year) at a higher cost than an objective layoff would imply.
Final decision or pending trial?
After it has been determined that the dismissals should not be unjust and void, What will happen to the workers the judge accepted and forced their company to take them back? “If the sentence is final, that is, if neither party has appealed at the time, the worker stays where he is,” says Pere Vidal, a labor lawyer and professor at the UOC. Therefore, the vast majority of workers who once objected to their dismissal they will not see their work in danger and they can stay the same.
On the other hand, workers and companies that still have open cases due to this covid rule will be affected. If the sentence is still in legal processi.e. timely appealed but parties still awaiting a new case, The decision of the Supreme Court is decisive. Because the court hearing the case may decide in favor of the inadmissibility of dismissal based on the thesis of the magistrates of the fourth chamber. “In a very specific case, a judge may come forward, but in the vast majority the outcome will be inappropriate,” adds Vidal.
The UGT union considers the court’s decision to form the basis of its argument that it is necessary to reform current severance pay conditions, which the recent workers’ reform has not addressed. “Know that in Spain unfairly easy and cheap to shootThe UGT sued Spain before the European Committee of Social Rights, demanding that it be sufficiently compensatory and dissuasive in accordance with European legislation,” said Fernando Luján, the union’s confederal secretary.
Christina Moncayo is a contributing writer for “Social Bites”. Her focus is on the gaming industry and she provides in-depth coverage of the latest news and trends in the world of gaming.