Summary of relevant court rulings: developments in working conditions and workers' rights in 2024

In this information alert, we provide a summary of several recent court rulings, handed down between October and November 2024, which address key issues in the employment field. These decisions, issued by the Court of Justice of the European Union and the Supreme Court, address issues such as the procedure to be followed in the event of disciplinary dismissal, the information to be provided on the pay register, or the application of the Temporary Agency Workers Directive to companies that do not have this status under Spanish law. Through these rulings, important implications for employers and workers are outlined, as well as the current interpretations of the labour regulations in force in Spain. 

New jurisprudential updates

Ruling of the Supreme Court of 18 November 2024 (rec. no. 4735/2024)

This Supreme Court ruling introduces a change in the formal requirements to be followed in disciplinary dismissals. Specifically, it assesses the case of a teacher who is disciplinarily dismissed for harassment of his female students. During the proceedings, the violation of article 7 of ILO Convention 158, which requires a prior hearing to be given to the employee when his or her contract is terminated for breach of contract. The Supreme Court understands in its judgment that this Convention is directly applicable in Spain and, therefore, that the prior hearing must be respected even though it is not expressly provided for in national labour legislation. 

Ruling of the Supreme Court of 21 November 2024 (rec. no. 218/2023)

The Supreme Court analyses whether, under the rules on the remuneration register (article 28.2 ET and Regulation 902/2020), there is an obligation to provide individualised remuneration information, so that the person behind the remuneration can be identified. The High Court understands that the regulations on the remuneration register do not provide for the obligation to provide individualised information, but rather to provide the average values broken down by sex according to the professional classification of the company. It also points out that providing individualised salary information on the basis of article 28.2 ET could violate data protection regulations, since there is no legal basis that expressly permits the provision of such information.

Ruling of the Supreme Court of 30 October 2024 (rec. no. 1271/2023)

The Supreme Court analyses whether the failure to simultaneously deliver a copy of the letter of objective dismissal of an employee to the workers' representatives means that the dismissal is considered unfair. In this case, the company had delivered a copy of the letter of objective dismissal to the works council 5 working days after the letter of dismissal had been delivered to the employee. In the appeal, this fact led the High Court of Justice of the Valencian Community to classify the dismissal as unfair. 

Ruling of the Supreme Court of 16 October 2024 (rec. no. 211/2022)

The Supreme Court analysed whether a radio and television company had infringed the right to strike by replacing the regular presenter of a radio programme who was exercising her right to strike with another person of the same professional category who did not assume that responsibility on a regular basis, in what is known as internal scabbing. The Supreme Court understands that there has been a violation of the right to strike because this substitution did not obey any of the cases in which this is permitted: for minimum services and/or for security and maintenance services in the company. Therefore, it understands that the company should not have broadcast the programme, in such a way that by replacing the presenter with another person, the right to strike was violated.

Ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 24 October 2024 (C441/23‑)

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has given preliminary rulings on questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid (High Court of Justice of Madrid) concerning Directive 2008/104 on temporary agency work. In this case, the question referred for a preliminary ruling concerns a worker who provided services for Microsoft and was formally hired by a contractor (not a temporary employment agency). 

Legislative updates

Organic Law 5/2024, of 11 November, on the Right to Defence

This regulation includes an additional provision that develops the right of indemnity of workers and their families against the unfavourable consequences that they may suffer as a result of any claim they may make against the company regarding their labour rights.