July 2016


1. amount of judicial fees contrary to the right to effective judicial protection

The Constitutional Court partially upheld the appeal lodged by the Socialist Parliamentary Group against Law 10/2012 of 20 November, which regulates fees charged by the judicial system and the National Institute of Toxicology and Forensic Sciences. The plenum of the Constitutional Court unanimously declared the provisions of the law setting the amount of the fees to file claims at first instance and to lodge appeals as unconstitutional and void as they infringe the right to effective judicial protection.

 back to top

2. delivery of a promissory note that expires on the date of A dismissal NOTIFICATION is valid

The Supreme Court held that promissory notes for statutory compensation to which employees are entitled upon their dismissal that are delivered together with letters of dismissal and which expire on the same day that the dismissals are notified are valid. They are deemed valid because employees can deposit the promissory notes in their bank accounts on the same day and as such the promissory notes meet the requirement that the compensation be made available simultaneously to the delivery of the letter of dismissal.

 back to top

3. Confirmation of PANRICO collective redundancy: no breach of the rights to strike and EQUALITY

The Labour Chamber of the Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the National Court which declared the collective redundancy in Panrico to be in accordance with the law, except as regards the deferment of the payment of the compensation agreed and the redundancies to be carried out during 2015 and 2016 (which were not questioned in the appeal).

 back to top

4. freedom of information does not include conduct that harms a person’s HONOUR WITHin the framework of a collective dispute

The Supreme Court resolved a clash between the right to honour and freedom of information by establishing limits on where employees could hang posters that criticised a manager within the framework of a collective dispute. The Supreme Court held that there was a difference between the actions taken in the company and those taken where the manager lived and at a family member’s business. It was held that only the posters put up in the workplace met the requirement of public relevance and therefore fell under the scope of the employees’ right to freedom of information.

 back to top

5. compensation for employment contract terminationS becomeS AN INSOLVENCY CREDIT when AN unappealable TERMINATION judgment is issued

The Supreme Court addressed when the compensation for the termination of an employment contract under article 50.1.b of the Statute of Workers becomes an insolvency credit following a declaration of insolvency. The Supreme Court held that this happens when the judgment that terminated the employment relationship becomes unappealable.

 back to top

6. dismissal of an employee suffering from a non-incapacitating temporary disability is not discriminatory if it is intended to guarantee business continuity

The Supreme Court concluded that the dismissal could be considered unfair, but not null on the grounds of discrimination as the reason for the dismissal was to avoid the temporary disability leave having a negative impact on job performance.

 back to top

7. A “housing allowance” salary item must be included in the compensation calculation FOR an objective dismissal

The High Court of Justice of Castile-La Mancha held that a “housing allowance” that was part of an employee’s remuneration (and for which social security contributions had been made) must be included as salary for the purposes of calculating the employee’s objective dismissal compensation.

 back to top

8. disciplinary dismissal of an employee who published OFFENSIVE COMMENTS ABOUT two colleagues on social networking WEBsites is valid

The High Court of Justice of Madrid held that there was no justification for the conduct of an employee who published offensive comments of a sexual nature on Facebook. The comments were about two colleagues who were also wives of other colleagues.

 back to top

9. Interpretation of non-compete clauses: limits to OBLIGATIONS OF an employee whO leaves a group of companies

The High Court of Madrid held that the amount of compensation an employee had to reimburse for breaching his two-year non-compete agreement must be limited to the proportional part that applies to the specific company and sector the employee worked in, and not the activities of all the companies in the employer’s group.

 back to top

The information contained in this Newsletter is of a general nature and does not constitute legal advice