1. The case analysed in the judgement
The judgement analyses the objective dismissal of an employee who worked as a draughtsman. The company justified the termination, amongst other reasons, on the grounds of technological developments in its business and the gradual introduction of digital tools capable of automating certain tasks that had previously been carried out by employees.
The company maintained that technological advances were making it possible to take over some of the operational and repetitive functions associated with the post, meaning that the need for labour had been reduced.
However, during the court proceedings, it emerged that certain tools were still at an early stage of implementation and that their actual use was limited. Furthermore, some of the documentation provided to substantiate the use of artificial intelligence was dated after the date on which the dismissal took place.
The Court considered that these circumstances prevented sufficient proof that the technological transformation had, at the time of the dismissal, led to an actual reduction in the need for labour.
Here at the Labour Law Department of Belzuz Abogados, S.L.P., we consider this ruling to be particularly relevant for companies undertaking digital transformation processes, as it highlights the importance of anticipating and correctly documenting employment-related decisions linked to the implementation of artificial intelligence.
2. Artificial intelligence cannot be a merely potential justification
One of the key aspects that companies must bear in mind is the difference between the potential capability of a technological tool and its actual impact on the organisation.
The fact that an artificial intelligence solution is technically capable of performing certain tasks does not, in itself, mean that those tasks no longer require human intervention.
For a dismissal due to artificial intelligence to be linked to a technical or organisational cause, the company must be able to explain what transformation has taken place, which roles have been affected, and how that transformation has actually reduced the need for labour.
In other words, it does not appear sufficient to claim that a particular technology will, in the future, enable a significant proportion of a post’s duties to be automated. The decision to terminate employment must be linked to a real organisational situation that exists at the time the decision is taken.
This aspect is particularly important when the company is still carrying out pilot tests, phased roll-outs or evaluations of different tools.
3. What must the company demonstrate before carrying out a redundancy due to AI?
The judgement allows us to draw a relevant practical conclusion: before taking a decision to make a redundancy based on technological transformation, the company should have sufficient documentary traceability to substantiate the process.
Among other aspects, it should be possible to identify:
- which technological tool has been implemented;
- when it actually came into use;
- which specific functions it enables to be automated;
- which tasks were previously carried out by the affected employee;
- what percentage or volume of those tasks no longer requires human intervention;
- how the organisation of work has changed;
- which functions remain and which have disappeared or been reduced;
- and what specific impact the transformation has had on staffing requirements.
It is not necessarily a question of proving that artificial intelligence has entirely replaced a worker. There may be a significant reduction in duties that justifies a reorganisation. However, the company must be able to establish a coherent link between the technological transformation and the decision to make the post redundant.
Here at the Labour Law Department of Belzuz Abogados, S.L.P., we believe this point is essential: the legal issue is not merely to demonstrate that the technology exists or that it can perform certain tasks, but to prove that its implementation has had a real impact on the company’s organisational needs.
4. The importance of the timing of the transformation
Another particularly relevant factor for companies is the temporal coincidence between the implementation of the technology and the decision to terminate the post.
In the case analysed, the Court noted that some of the technical documentation used to prove the functioning of the artificial intelligence had been drawn up several months after the dismissal.
Subsequent documentation may serve to explain the evolution of a particular tool, but it presents difficulties in proving exactly what the situation was on the date of the redundancy.
Therefore, if a company is developing an automation project that may have consequences for employment, it is highly advisable to document the process from its earliest stages: needs analysis, selection of tools, testing, implementation, functional changes and reorganisation of tasks.
5. AI as a cause of reorganisation: the link must be genuine
The use of artificial intelligence can bring about significant changes to a company’s structure. Certain tasks may be automated, others may be integrated into new processes, and some roles may see a significant reduction in their responsibilities.
However, from an employment law perspective, the company must distinguish between a genuine technological transformation and a mere anticipation of future transformation.
The organisational grounds require proof of an effective reorganisation of material and human resources. If the company maintains that technology has made it possible to reduce labour requirements, it must explain how this reduction has come about and what consequences it has for the post in question.
The judgement focuses precisely on this link. The existence of a general digitalisation strategy or a project to implement artificial intelligence does not automatically determine the loss of specific jobs.
The company must identify the specific impact of the transformation on the post whose redundancy it seeks to justify.
6. Key recommendations for companies
The main conclusion of this ruling for companies is that artificial intelligence may form part of a business reorganisation, but does not in itself constitute an automatic ground for dismissal.
Before taking a decision to make redundancies linked to automation, it is highly advisable to analyse at least three issues: what has actually changed within the organisation, what impact that change has on the role’s duties, and what documentation can be used to substantiate both points.
It will also be important to distinguish between technological projects in the experimental phase and tools that are already fully integrated into the production process.
For this reason, the Labour Law Department at Belzuz Abogados, S.L.P. recommends that companies analyse and document in advance any technological transformation process that may have an impact on the organisation of work or on specific job roles. Proper legal planning of these processes enables risks to be anticipated, ensures that business decisions are underpinned by a solid documentary basis, and reduces the risk of any decision to terminate employment being challenged in court. At Belzuz Abogados, S.L.P., we have experience in providing employment law advice to companies undergoing reorganisation, technological transformation and the adoption of new tools, supporting them both in the preliminary analysis and in the correct implementation of any necessary employment measures.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ)
Can a company dismiss an employee because their duties have been automated using artificial intelligence?
- The introduction of artificial intelligence may lead to technical and organisational changes that could affect certain roles, but the existence of the technology does not automatically mean that dismissal is justified. The company must demonstrate the reality of the transformation and its impact on work requirements.
Is it sufficient to demonstrate that an AI tool can perform the employee’s duties?
- Not necessarily. The technical capability of a tool does not equate to its actual use. It will be important to demonstrate that the technology has actually been implemented and that it has led to an effective reduction in job functions or workforce requirements.
What happens if the artificial intelligence is still in the testing phase?
- If the tool is in an experimental or testing phase, the company must exercise extreme caution when using its implementation as grounds for redundancy. It will be particularly important to demonstrate what actual effects the technology has had as at the date of the redundancy.
What should companies do before considering a redundancy due to AI?
- Companies should first analyse the actual impact of automation, document the changes to job roles and the organisation of work, and verify that there is a sufficiently substantiated link between the technological change and the need to make the post redundant.