The devastating war Palestine and costs thousands of lives Middle East It creates a strong impact on social networks. Internet users with more or less followers have been expressing their opinions in favor of both the Palestinian cause and the Israeli occupation for weeks. This conflict is a conflict in which many football players with international prestige have taken part, such as the former Real Madrid striker, who today plays for Al-Ittihad Jeddah in the Saudi league. Karim Benzema. A tweet criticizing “unjust bombings” against Gazans prompted a veiled accusation from the French Interior Minister that he had terrorist links.
Less well-known or directly anonymous individuals have also given their own views on the conflict in the Middle East. direct consequences for your professional careerl. Within Israel and beyond its borders. Dismissals of workers who support the Palestinian side are on the rise in the United States. Could something similar happen in Spain? What consequences might publishing a tweet for or against a party have for an employee’s future employment?
Spanish courts have spilled rivers of ink over freedom of expression, its limits, and the extent to which a company can punish or fire an employee for opinions expressed at or outside the workplace. Freedom of expression And ideological These are fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution that companies cannot restrict… but not every comment made can be considered ‘freedom of expression’.
Not all companies view their employees’ expression of political views and attitudes in this direction in the same way. Banque Chaabi du Maroc The participation of the manager of one of their branches in Madrid in a protest against the Moroccan government and in defense of the rights of Rif citizens was not well received. The employee, whose profile photo was revealed at work, wrote on his Facebook account: “Are you the government or a criminal gang?” he wrote.
Three days later, the bank filed a file against him, alleging damage to his reputation, and subsequently reported him for dismissal. Last July, Constitutional Court: “In companies operating neutrally […] “They do not allow the employer to demand anything from the employee beyond compliance with the obligations arising from the employment contract that unites them.”
That is, unless a company’s ultimate goal is to spread certain ideas, its employees have no obligation to express the same opinion as management, and management cannot censor them for expressing them. For this reason, the Republic of Turkey decided to cancel the dismissal and forced the bank to reinstate the worker. A company that brings the issue to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict would be unlawful by firing an employee who goes to a demonstration or expresses an opinion in favor of one of the parties on social networks.
“Ideological” companies
A different situation may apply for companies that are legally considered “ideological”, that is, whose ultimate aim is to promote an idea. For example, a political party. That was the case EuiAIn 2015, he fired one of his communications managers for criticizing the party leadership via his Twitter account.
The TSJ of Catalonia considered the dismissal appropriate, on the grounds that “it is not the same as a militant criticizing his party’s political position on a particular issue.” […] Considering that the right to freedom of expression is limited or modified in favor of fundamental rights that also underpin the contract, from the moment one decides to sign the employment contract by his own decision, the person most responsible for the communication must do so. According to the decision, these include the right to protect the company’s honor and keep its ideology and external image intact.
Another famous event was Barcelona’s transfer of the player. Sergi Guardiola for your subsidiary. On the day its foundation was announced, some of his messages went viral on Twitter, in which he called, among other things, “whore Catalonia” or “Still Madrid”.. Barça terminated his contract on the same day, claims that its legal principles include “the Catalan identity of the club”. So, for example, if a foundation’s primary mission is to support the interests of the State of Israel and one of its employees tweets in favor of the Palestinian cause, it would be lawful for him to be dismissed.
However, the company must be able to prove in detail that the employee in question violated the organization’s founding values and must not limit itself to a general defense that he or she did so. It was the case decided by the Constitutional Court in 1985 of a teacher working at the Lestonnac school in Mollet de Vallés, who was dismissed on the grounds that he “carried out his professional activity in a way that did not comply with the ideology governing the centre”. Here the judges condemned the school, demanding to say exactly how the teacher’s teaching differed from common values.
The difference between expressing an opinion and insulting
Some social media users express their views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict based on data, reflection, respect and critical discussion. While others also voice their own points of view They belittle and belittle those who think differently, and even wish them dead.. The difference between expressing an opinion and insulting may be particularly relevant in court if a company decides to fire one of its employees because of his political views.
There are many proven cases of companies punishing or even firing workers because they felt that their comments on social networks tarnished the company’s reputation and could harm the business. For example, an ambulance company fined one of its drivers for uploading videos to his TikTok channel criticizing the company’s practices. Catalonia’s TSJ also agreed with the worker, considering that his videos were not insulting and that his complaints were protected under freedom of expression.
Insult is an important limit. In October 2022, the TSJ of Asturias ruled that it was appropriate to dismiss a worker who was recorded on video wearing a company polo shirt and describing the store’s customers as “motherfuckers“. According to the Asturian judges, in these words “there is no criticism or opinion, only the plaintiff’s repeated insults towards the company’s customers” and “damaged the company’s image in the eyes of the general public and, in particular, the persons named”.