The communication of an employee’s dismissal letter to the members of the Works Council and its possible conflict with the employee’s right to personal data protection.
This publication analyses the ruling dated 13 March 2025, handed down by Section 2 of the Provincial Court of Burgos, in which the focus of the debate centres on the communication to the works council of the full content of an employee’s dismissal letter, and the tension with the right to protection of personal data. Provincial Court of Burgos, in which the focus of the debate centres on the communication to the Works Council of the full content of a letter of dismissal of an employee, and the tension with the right to the protection of personal data of the employee who has been dismissed (protected by Article 18.4 of the Spanish Constitution).
The plaintiff was an employee (Ms Adela) who was dismissed on objective grounds. She sued the company she had been working for (OHL SERVICIOS INGESAN, S.A), alleging a violation of her right to honour given the communication of her personal data to the Works Council without her consent. She therefore sought compensation of €18,000, which she believed was justified by the nature of the unlawfully processed data.
Specifically, the claimant considered that the information provided by Ms Adelaida to the members of the Works Council went beyond the simple delivery of the letter of dismissal (covered by Articles 53.1 and 64.6 of the Workers’ Statute). The documentation provided included the payslip, the settlement, the company certificate, the nominative bank cheque and the receipt, thus exceeding thus exceeding the legal coverage and legitimate interest of Article 6.1 c) and f) of Regulation 2016/679 of 27 April on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data.
Furthermore, the dismissal letter contained sensitive personal data, such as a medical examination confirming the employee’s physical and mental limitations, her marital status and her membership of the General Worker’s trade union (UGT). According to the claimant, this data was the reason for her dismissal.
The claim was dismissed by Burgos Court of First Instance No. 5 on 11 October 2024, which is why the claimant lodged an appeal against the aforementioned ruling.
The Court of First Instance No. 5 of Burgos agreed to dismiss the claim, considering, in summary, the following reasons:
- Lack of evidence: The claimant did not clearly indicate the damage suffered, the content or expressions allegedly harmful to the right to honour, privacy and personal image. Likewise, it was not proven that the documentation submitted by the defendant contained information about the claimant’s private life, nor that the communication of data to third parties had been extended.
- The submission of documentation to the Chair of the Works Council, and from there to the members of the Council and the legal advisor of the General Worker’s trade union (UGT), is covered by Articles 53 and 54 of the Workers’ Statute (legal provisions governing, respectively, the termination of contracts for objective reasons and disciplinary dismissal).
Likewise, Regulation 2016/679 of 27 April establishes in Article 1(c) that data processing is lawful if it is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation applicable to the data controller.
Section 2 of the Provincial Court of Burgos, in the same terms as the Court of First Instance, concluded that the sending of the dismissal letter (together with any accompanying documentation, such as the payslip or settlement of the nominative bank cheque and its receipt) does not constitute a violation of personal data protection regulations, but rather complies with a legal obligation and the right to information of all members of the Works Council.
At most, the dismissal letter already contained personal data relating to the employee, without any evidence that the dismissal communication included other personal data or that such data had been disclosed to third parties without her authorisation.
In summary, express reference is made to the Supreme Court ruling of 7 March 2011, in which the Supreme Court clarified that the copy to be provided to the workers’ representatives is a notice of dismissal stating the reason for the termination decision and references to the notice period, together with the corresponding compensation. This constitutes compliance with a legal obligation.
For all these reasons, the Provincial Court of Burgos agreed to dismiss the appeal and uphold the ruling handed down by Burgos Court of First Instance No. 5, with the appellant expressly ordered to pay the procedural costs.
Clara Tomàs
Internal Investigations Department – Molins Defensa Penal