The case centers on a waitress who lost her job after a cascade of pressure at work and at home. The stress from her supervisor and the owner’s spouse contributed to a pregnancy loss at 16 weeks. This situation led to medical leave and ultimately a ruling by Zamora’s Second Social Court. The decision addressed whether the dismissal was fair and whether the hotelier’s actions violated the employee’s rights, with the verdict noting a significant unilateral change in employment terms by the employer. The court recognized the worker’s damages and awarded compensation to reflect the impact on her life and income.
The reinstatement required by the court was to occur under the same terms, with an indefinite schedule and a 23-hour workweek from Monday to Saturday, primarily morning shifts. The employee and the company had agreed to a February 2023 arrangement that allowed the worker, who at the time had a four-year-old daughter in school, to return under these conditions. In its ruling, the judge confirmed a compensation of 7,501 euros for damages suffered by the employee due to the abrupt change in employment conditions and the impact on her livelihood. This decision highlighted a significant business reorganization imposed unilaterally by the employer and found that the worker’s rights were violated during this period. The company’s labor law attorney team, led by Coro Bermejo Arnedo, and Victor López Rodríguez, presented the case from the workers’ perspective, while the company argued that the measures were necessary to adapt operations. The judge balanced these arguments, acknowledging the worker’s victimization while noting the employer’s position. A full-time-reinstatement option was discussed in discussions between the sides. [Citation: Zamora Second Social Court verdict]
The dismissal was because the hours could not be increased
The situation deteriorated after the waitress informed the hotel manager and the owner’s spouse via WhatsApp that she was pregnant. On June 30, 2023, the response arrived stating that the dismissal had nothing to do with pregnancy and instead referred to a failure to meet the employer’s demand to increase working hours. The worker’s salary, including prorated extraordinary payments, was 744.24 euros, and a notice outlined changes in tariffs for the following day and the afternoon, with weeks described as indefinite and with a scheduled rest day each week. The employer cited organizational reasons for adjusting opening hours and noted that the worker could not terminate the contract voluntarily. When harm was perceived, a compensation approach was used, amounting to 20 days of salary for each year worked, capped at nine months. The worker experienced a morning anxiety attack leading to an emergency room visit at 5:22 p.m., as documented in the court’s findings. This sequence of events formed the core evidence in the ruling. [Citation: Zamora Second Social Court verdict]
The case also described how the employer argued the changes were necessary for the business to operate with the new schedule. The court, however, found that the firm did not justify the alterations as socially relevant or connected to competitiveness, productivity, or proper work organization. With a small staff of four people and the owner plus her spouse, the hotelier did not demonstrate alignment with a collective bargaining framework. The court emphasized that the employer could not unilaterally impose broad changes without proper justification under labor standards. The ruling underscores the importance of consulting workers when major shifts in working conditions are contemplated. [Citation: Zamora Second Social Court verdict]
Abortion and return to work
The worker attempted to resume duties on August 3, 2023, but the administrator blocked the return. Municipal police were involved, and a report was filed. The judge noted that a doctor had discharged the employee due to concerns, and the worker subsequently took a period of leave, followed by a brief vacation that both sides later recognized. Three days before rejoining, the worker faced urgent medical needs tied to an abortion, which was treated as legitimate under the circumstances. The court determined that the 7,501 euros awarded earlier would compensate the employee for the harm caused by the improper changes to her working hours, which were made without consultation. The Labor Charter allows significant changes in working conditions only when proven to be economically, technically, organizationally, or production-relatedly necessary and socially relevant. The decision confirmed that these conditions were not present in this case, highlighting the size of the operation (four staff members) and the lack of a binding collective agreement adapted to the business. The judgment noted that employers must respect collective agreements and content, applying across the entire operation’s scope and term. [Citation: Zamora Second Social Court verdict]