The Supreme Court has put an end to a long legal debate that has dragged on since the so-called "prohibition of dismissal" in force during the times of the pandemic. The judges rule that the dismissals carried out during that period for economic or organizational needs they are not automatically void, but can also be unfair.In this way, companies are not forced to a compulsory reinstatement of the dismissed worker, but can be replaced by compensation, which corresponds to an unfair dismissal.
In an informative note published this morning, the IV Chamber of the Supreme Court annuls that "prohibition of dismissal." This is the principle established by the Royal Decree of urgent measures of the year 2000 to deal with the consequences of the pandemic. It provided that force majeure or economic, technical and production causes could not be understood as justifications for the termination of the employment contract or dismissal.
The sentence, which will be known in the next few days, establishes that these dismissals cannot be classified as null, except if there is some specific data that proves it, such as the violation of a fundamental right, the circumvention of collective dismissal regulations or some other reason. That is to say, there is no automaticity in the qualification of null. In this way, the TS considers an appeal presented before a ruling of the Superior Court of Justice of the Basque Country, which opted for the nullity of the dismissals, understanding that they were prohibited and that they incurred fraud.
Among the arguments of the Supreme Court, it stands out that the decree of urgent measures does not contain a true prohibition, nor does the consequences of a fraudulent dismissal entail its nullity. And he adds that when there is a termination of contract without valid cause, it will be necessary to resort to current legislation.
