The Spanish energy company Duro Felguera, a key player in the Asturian business landscape, reached a pact with unions in November 2022 to carry out the mass dismissal of 180 workers. However, only six of the eleven union representatives backed the agreement, and one factory delegation rejected it. Left Unity Movement and ERE appealed to the High Court of Justice of Asturias, and then to the Supreme Court, which affirmed that the agreement had an economic basis and was negotiated in good faith.
The decision on the presentation of the Social Chamber of the Supreme Court, issued by Judge Juan Molins, is published by El Periódico de España, part of the Prensa Ibérica group. It corroborates the stance previously taken by the Asturias Superior Court of Justice in March of the previous year regarding the unions’ claims.
Unity Current Representatives refused to sign the agreement and pressed for a restructuring that would avoid layoffs, proposing alternatives such as early retirement. They argued they had been hired and warned that there was no feasible plan to manage the workload once layoffs occurred.
Duro Felguera reduces layoffs in Asturias from 240 to 180
Consequently, they asked the Supreme Court to declare the ERE invalid and to reinstate workers with compensation for damages suffered up to that point. The appeal was rejected, and the Supreme Court has now upheld that decision.
Duro Felguera faces a business downturn
The ruling includes concrete data about the group’s situation. From 2014 through December 31, 2021, net turnover declined steadily, with the period showing 90.9% of the time a downturn. During the same span, personnel expenses fell, as did general operating costs by 88.4%. The group’s net worth has been negative since 2020.
The Social Chamber examined whether intimidation or rights abuses occurred under the contract, whether the group negotiated in good faith, whether the required documents were provided, if the economic, organizational, and productive reasons justified the collective dismissal, whether worker allocation met legal criteria, and whether coercion played any role in the process.
In its submissions, Corriente Sindical alleged intimidation, claiming that the group used pressure during negotiations. The agreement allocated 98 of the 180 affected positions to the parent company, 71 to DFMOM, 11 to Mompresa, and the company would also cover 40 jobs abroad. The plaintiffs argued that the measure would affect all workers and act as a tool to influence last-minute votes.
A couple was rescued
The Labor Inspector’s decision noted that two spouses would not be included in the company’s retrenchment file, with one remaining employed. The other party, both over 60, was still included in the file, according to Corriente Sindical, the secretary of the committee that endorsed the agreement. This arrangement ensured that both parties would secure compensation under retirement conditions.
Anti-corruption calls for Duro Felguera to be prosecuted over allegations of bribery from previous administration
The Supreme Court responded that the factual statements about the Asturias court’s decision did not contain evidence showing why one worker representative voted in favor of the agreement. It also noted the removal of five positions at Felguera IHI SA.
Credibility given to the witness was limited, and the plaintiff’s testimony was not proven. There was no evidence that the signing official was promoted immediately after the contract or that the committee’s secretary and his spouse received any preferential treatment.
The Court stated that it did not rule out a willingness to negotiate by the company. Instead, it observed that a broad negotiation process occurred between the company and the majority of workers’ representatives, resulting in an agreement that reduced the number of terminations and helped with forecasting a future workload.
The Court also confirmed that the group’s economic fragility was clear: negative operating results, a sharp drop in turnover, and negative pre-tax results despite revenue. Equity remained negative since 2020 and liquidity risk was substantial. These conditions contributed to the decision to proceed with personnel adjustments, with the Court concluding that there were valid economic grounds for the majority-backed agreement on November 9, 2022.