An administrative assistant fired on the grounds that she would be replaced by an automated system saw the court rule in her favor. According to the news published by Noticias Trabajo, a Spanish website specializing in legal and labor matters, the dismissal was considered unfounded due to lack of proof of a real restructuring of the company and the alleged “robotization” that would justify the termination of the job.
According to the same source, the decision was taken by the Superior Court of Justice of the Basque Country (TSJ País Vasco), which confirmed the previous sentence and rejected the arguments presented by the employer.
The worker had worked as an administrative assistant since March 2019, in a center located in Donostia/San Sebastián. Also according to Noticias Trabajo, his work consisted of the post-signature processing of mortgages granted by Banco Sabadell, validating documentation in the system for subsequent registration in the Property Registry.
In May 2023, the company informed the worker of her dismissal for objective reasons (“objective dismissal”), citing organizational and technical reasons. According to the report, the dismissal letter pointed to a decrease in the number of mortgages handled and the need to reorganize the center, and also referred to the “implementation of a robotization process” with “advantages in terms of efficiency, agility and cost reduction”.
The same piece also states that, on the same day, three other workers were fired on similar grounds.
Worker challenged and went to court
According to , the worker went to court and the Juzgado de lo Social no. 4 of Donostia partially assessed the action, declaring the dismissal unfounded. The court highlighted that, despite there being a decline in activity in 2023, data from 2022 showed an increase in the number of mortgages processed; Furthermore, the reduction affected the center as a whole and it was not demonstrated why that worker’s position should be eliminated.
Following this decision, the company was ordered to choose between reinstatement or payment of additional compensation of 2,253.90 euros, in addition to the amount already paid at the time of the objective dismissal, according to the same source.
Company appealed, but the court confirmed the groundlessness
According to the report, the employer appealed (supplication appeal) to the TSJ País Vasco, arguing that the drop in activity was structural and not temporary, pointing out the increase in Euribor, and insisting on robotization as a central argument.
The court, however, considered that the company did not demonstrate how many workers performed similar functions in that center, nor did it present proof of the effective implementation of the automated process and its impact on the reduction of jobs; and, when comparing data, he observed that between 2021 and 2022 there were almost no differences in the volume of mortgages handled by the worker, so the decline at the beginning of 2023, in itself, did not justify dismissal without clear proof of excess staff in that area.
And in Portugal? What the law would require in a dismissal for “technological reasons”
In Portugal, the closest figure (when the basis is reorganization/technology) is, as a rule, dismissal due to the termination of the job, when the termination is due to market, structural or technological reasons.
The law cumulatively requires, among other points, that the subsistence of the employment relationship is practically impossible, that there are no fixed-term contracts for corresponding tasks and that collective dismissal is not applicable; and imposes selection criteria when there are several positions with identical functional content.
The procedure also provides for control mechanisms: for example, representative entities or the worker himself can request the service with inspection competence (in practice, the ACT) to verify specific requirements for dismissal due to termination of post.
If, in court, a dismissal is declared unlawful, the rule is for the employer to be ordered to reinstate the employee (with exceptions provided for by law) and pay the legally stipulated consequences.
Furthermore, the worker has the right to so-called interim remuneration (which he no longer received from the moment of dismissal until the decision declaring the illegality became final), under the terms of the Labor Code, a matter also dealt with in constitutional jurisprudence.
As the Spanish case as reported by the Spanish press illustrates, invoking “robotization” or “modernization” requires factual and documentary support. In Portugal, the law also requires concrete grounds and strict compliance with requirements and procedures, and the consequence of an unlawful dismissal is, as a rule, reinstatement, with the associated financial effects.
Also read:
