The protection afforded by Article 53.4 b) of the Workers’ Statute
The Spanish legal system affords enhanced protection to those exercising their right to work-life balance. According to Article 53.4 b) of the Workers’ Statute, the dismissal of a person who has requested or is currently benefiting from a reduction in working hours for the purpose of caring for a dependent family member shall be deemed null and void, unless the employer can conclusively prove that the grounds for dismissal are entirely unrelated to that right.
This ‘presumption of nullity’ seeks to prevent reprisals. However, as we have analysed in the Labour Department of Belzuz Abogados, S.L.P., this guarantee must not be interpreted as a ‘carte blanche’ allowing the consequences of a legitimate business crisis to be sidestepped.
Case analysis: Timeline of a labour dispute
To understand why the High Court of Justice of Andalusia ruled in favour of the company regarding the non-nullity of the dismissal, we must examine the timeline of events:
- March 2018: The company formally informs the workforce of its financial unviability. Meetings are held to warn of the imminent closure.
- 5 July 2018: An employee, who had been with the company since 2004, submitted a request for a reduction in working hours to care for a child under the age of 12.
- 1 August 2018: The company formalised the dismissal on economic grounds, citing an unsustainable drop in revenue and donations.
The employee brought a claim seeking a declaration of nullity, arguing that her prior request automatically triggered legal protection against dismissal.
The Doctrine of Fraud of Law (Article 6.4 of the Civil Code)
The turning point in this judgment is the application of Article 6.4 of the Civil Code. This provision establishes that acts carried out under the guise of a legal provision which pursue a result prohibited by the legal system, or contrary to it, shall be deemed to have been carried out in fraud of law.
The Court considered it proven that the employee was not seeking to reach a settlement, but rather to avoid dismissal. As she was already aware of the association’s critical situation, the request for a reduction in working hours became a tool of obstruction.
Why was nullity ruled out?
- Knowledge of the closure: The employee had been informed months earlier of the financial difficulties.
- Temporal proximity: The request was made just before the announced redundancies were carried out.
- Absence of retaliation: The cause of the dismissal (closure due to lack of funds) was genuine and predated the employee’s request.
Difference between Null and Unfair Dismissal
It is essential to highlight a legal nuance of this ruling: the Court declared the dismissal unfair, but not null.
- Why unfair? Due to deficiencies in the letter of dismissal (insufficient description of the grounds). This entails the payment of the maximum statutory compensation (33 days per year worked).
- Why not null and void? The court found no violation of fundamental rights nor discrimination on family grounds.
Recommendations for Companies and Employees
At Belzuz Abogados, S.L.P. Madrid, we consider it essential to document all briefing meetings regarding economic crises or explanations of the reasons justifying the decision to terminate employment. If the company can demonstrate that the employee was aware of the situation before requesting the reduction, it has grounds to allege fraud of law.
Conclusion
The ruling of the High Court of Justice of Andalusia serves as a reminder that contractual good faith is a pillar of labour law. Maternity and paternity protection is a situation of special employment protection under our legal system, but it cannot be used as a shield against objective and pre-existing economic realities.
If you require specialist advice on fair dismissal or work-life balance rights, the team at Belzuz Abogados, S.L.P. is at your disposal to analyse your specific case.