void

There are work stories that seem taken from from the script of a series of Netflix lawyers, but they really happen. The story of a saleswoman at an Asturian paint store is one of them: in less than a year she went through two dismissals, two trials and ended up in the same position, but with the company sentenced to pay her more than 25,000 euros. as compensation. The most curious thing is that the whole mess started with something as simple as a change of schedule which she refused. Almost two years later, it has become clear to the company that it was not a good idea. The first dismissal: an excuse without evidence. As detailed in the sentence of the casethe employee had been working in the company since September 2023 with a permanent contract, combining administrative tasks with those of a salesperson in a paint store. In April 2024, the company fired her, alleging a “voluntary and continued decrease in normal work performance” as an argument for taking a disciplinary dismissal. However, the Social Court No. 6 of Oviedo did not believe it. The ruling stated that “the content of the dismissal letter is a standard format that is given to everyone the company wants to fire; and in fact it is stated that the plaintiff was working well but that she needs someone with more time availability.” That is, the court recognized that the company had fired her because she did not want to change her schedule, and they did so just eight days after she rejected it. As a result, the judge declared the void dismissalordered that she be reinstated under the same conditions and in the same position, and ordered the company to pay her 5,000 euros for violation of her rights, plus all the salaries she had stopped receiving since her dismissal. Back to work, and back in the spotlight. The employee returned to her position on September 25, 2024. Just ten days later, the company temporarily sent her to cover a replacement in one of its stores in another nearby town. At the end of October, when checking her email, she found a message from her sales manager in which she was accused of having made several drums and cans of paint disappear during the days she had been assigned to that store. The company gave him five days to explain the disappearance of the products. That same day, the employee succumbed to the pressure and a doctor estimated that he should undergo a medical leave due to generalized anxiety. Days later, the employee reported the pressure to the Labor Inspection, and in November the company reopened a disciplinary file against her. On December 19, 2024, the second disciplinary dismissal came, this time with three accusations: having stolen merchandise from the company, seriously insulting the manager and making an insulting phone call to the sales manager. The second trial: there was no evidence either. None of these accusations could be proven during the judicial process. The company did not present inventories or any objective evidence about the whereabouts of the missing drums. Regarding the alleged insults, the judge showed that the witness who corroborated them was not reliable, among other reasons because he had had a direct role at the first dismissal. Therefore, the court again declared the dismissal void, and once again ordered the company to reinstate the worker and pay her the wages not collected since the dismissal. Furthermore, for having relapsed in its conduct, the court sentenced the company to pay compensation Additional 11,249.50 euros for violating the employee’s rights. Protecting rights cannot have retaliation. The company appealed the ruling, but the Superior Court of Justice of Asturias confirmed it on January 27, 2026. The underlying reason for all this judicial farce is a basic principle: when a worker claims his rights before the court or denounces his company, the company should not take retaliation against the worker. If it does so, as the judges have correctly detected, the courts can declare the dismissal null and void and add extra compensation for the damage caused to the employee’s labor rights. In this case, the court assessed that everything occurred in a very specific context: the employee had already won a lawsuit for the first dismissal, she had only been back at the company for a few weeks and had just reported it to the Labor Inspection. With that history, and without the company could prove none of the accusations against him, the judges concluded that the second dismissal was retaliation. The final result accumulates a sum greater than 25,000 euros between compensation and unpaid salaries, and the unpaid salaries from the second dismissal are still pending. And all for one schedule change. In Xataka | If you resign, you need to give advance notice of voluntary resignation: how and when to give it Image | Illustrious Bar Association of OviedoUnsplash (Center for Aging Better)