Proposal to withdraw legal action as evidence of retaliation
Commentary on STSJ Navarra (Social Chamber) No. 302/2025, of 4 September
The Labour Chamber of the High Court of Justice of Navarre has upheld a lower court ruling declaring null and void the disciplinary sanction imposed by a company in the iron and steel sector on an employee who was a member of the Works Council. The ruling also confirms the company’s obligation to pay compensation of €7,500 to the worker for violating the guarantee of indemnity, or, in other words, for attempting to interfere with the worker’s exercise of his fundamental right to effective judicial protection (Art. 24.2 CE).
The judgment appealed by the company declares the following facts to be proven:
- One day in January 2023 (18.1), the sanctioned worker had an “exchange of words” with worker V., with whom he had a poor relationship
- Seven days later (25.1), another worker, Mr F., received instructions from his colleague Mr V. that he considered unacceptable due to their dangerous nature, and therefore reported the orders he had received to two members of the Works Council, including the sanctioned worker, Mr E. These two worker representatives immediately asked Mr V. for an explanation, who in turn escalated the dispute to the Production Manager and the Managing Director of the company. In the context of this incident, in one of the discussions following the intervention of the General Management, Mr E. told Mr V. that “there will be complaints for everyone”.
- Two days later (27 January), the Committee filed a complaint with the Labour Inspectorate (INSS).
- Eleven days later (7.2), the company informed Mr E. that disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against him for verbally abusing a colleague, showing him disrespect and failing to show him due consideration on 18 and 25 January
- Sixteen days later (23.2), worker E. was formally notified of the imposition of a sixty (60) day suspension from work and pay for the alleged offence described
- The sanction was imposed by the Director General of the entity, who days later told the members of the Works Council that he was willing to withdraw it if they withdrew the complaint they had filed with the Labour Inspectorate.
The trial judge and the Labour Chamber of the High Court of Justice of Navarra agree that the temporal connection between the security incident (25.1), the announcement of the filing of complaints by worker E. (on the same day), the filing of a complaint with the INSS two days later (27.1) and the opening of disciplinary proceedings eleven days later (7.2) and the subsequent imposition of a sanction (23.2) is indicative that in this specific case the guarantee of indemnity has been violated.
The Chamber adds that the temporal connection described would be sufficient to presume that the sanction was imposed in retaliation for the complaint filed with the INSS by the Works Council, of which worker E. was a member.
However, the Court points out that in this specific case there is a powerful additional indication: the offer made by the Director General to the members of the Works Council, consisting of withdrawing the sanction if they withdrew their complaint to the INSS.
Consequently, the Chamber reverses the burden of proof and requires the company to demonstrate that there were compelling reasons for imposing the disciplinary sanction on the worker. However, in this regard, it could only be proven that worker E. had an “exchange of words” with worker V. and that he announced that “there would be complaints for everyone”. According to the Court, these facts would not warrant the sanction imposed.
The ruling in question is of particular practical relevance, as there are many cases in which, when there are cross-complaints between the parties to the dispute, one of them raises the possibility of reaching an agreement through the reciprocal waiver of actions. Although it cannot be inferred from the ruling in question that such approaches are prohibited in the context of complaints by an employee against their company, as the offer is simply considered a strong indication that the previous sanction against the reporting employee was imposed for instrumental purposes, it does require particular caution in this regard. At the very least, it is advisable not to make such offers directly between individuals, but rather, where appropriate, to do so through legal representation.