From the of , we have been advising our clients, mainly multinational and national companies, in all labour law matters, especially in the defence of their interests in court, as in the case to comment on the Supreme Court Judgment of 12 April 2024.

In particular, the aforementioned ruling has had a significant impact in legal forums and social networks due to the aspect of the decision of the High Court of Justice to uphold the validity of the dismissal ruled by the Social Court in relation to the threat to the company to publish confidential information if a negotiated solution was not achieved.

But to better understand this court ruling and its conclusion, I believe that we must put the reader in the factual background of the case, and these are initiated by an internal investigation process in a multinational company (where there is the corresponding Harassment Protocol and Equality Plan) in relation to a situation of harassment of a worker against his colleague (it should be noted that almost all the evidence provided to the trial corresponds to WhatsApp conversations and emails between colleagues).

Once the corresponding internal investigation protocol had been completed, and in view of the evidence obtained, the Company decided to initiate the contradictory disciplinary proceedings regulated by the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement, granting the employee a period of 3 working days to reply to the statement of charges, and it is during this period of allegations that the employee, instead of making allegations in his defence, in addition to insulting his colleague again, states his intention to reach an agreement on the unfairness of the dismissal or otherwise threatens the company to contact certain clients with confidential company information, even adding that he has documentary evidence in his personal computer that supports the threat.

With this summary of the factual background of the aforementioned Judgment, it is also interesting to know the cause of appeal of the worker’s defence in relation to the threats, considering that these expressions were made by the worker in the use of his legitimate right to defence, freedom of expression, and should be ‘understood’ in the context of the labour conflict in which the worker was subjected to ‘enormous tension’.

In view of the positions of both parties, we consider it easier to understand the legal grounds of the Madrid High Court Judgment, which it rightly considers;

The denial of the application to the specific case of the Constitutional Court Judgment 120/83 which establishes that in times of extreme conflict there is no generic duty of loyalty to the Company, because it considers that the factual situation (teachers on strike) of said Judgment cannot be assimilated to the present case where the plaintiff, and I quote literally, ‘does not limit himself to defending himself against the strike’, ‘In other words, he is asking for money and, if this negotiation is not granted, in addition to contesting the file, he will contact the clients and ask them to contact him, and if they do not give in to this negotiation, he will contact the company’s clients and ask for compensation. Furthermore He acknowledges that he has an email prepared with the evidence gathered, which will affect the company’s reputation’.

The Court is right in considering that we are not dealing with an emotional episode that leads the worker to express himself in a thoughtless manner, given that the worker comments that he has gathered evidence and has prepared an email, and therefore, citing even the TC Judgment 120/83 itself, it concludes in the dismissal of the Appeal and the validation of the legal grounds of the lower Social Court, which in this aspect stated that ‘the worker’s conduct is conscious, voluntary and contrary to the obligation to respect trust and the good faith of the employment relationship, the breach is seriously transgressing and constitutes grounds for disciplinary dismissal’.

In conclusion, from and its team of labour lawyers, we have detailed in this article the court decision of important media coverage in legal forums, whose legal direction has obtained this favourable pronouncement to our client, although with the development of this article we also want to convey that each case will depend on the relevant facts, and obviously the appropriate legal advice and legal assistance as we offer in the of