In the case considered by the Judgment of the Supreme Court of January 11, 2022 (case no. 4890/2018), the dismissal of four workers, specialist porters, occurred for objective reasons (organizational and productive) due to the termination of a contract. A fifth worker from the same workplace was transferred to another company workplace located 26 kilometers away, leading to the closure of the initial workplace. At this other workplace, located in the same province, the company entered into 17 temporary employment contracts through a temporary employment agency (ETT) to cover specialist porter tasks, on dates close to the four dismissals (both before and after these dismissals). One of the dismissed workers challenged the dismissal, arguing that the company did not need to eliminate actual jobs since it was hiring through an ETT. The claimant worker contended that there was no real overstaffing in the company that justified the objective dismissal.

The Judgment of January 11, 2022 (case no. 4890/2018) holds that the productive and organizational cause (termination of the contract) took place at the Cabanillas workplace, and thus, the measure adopted (closure of the workplace with four objective dismissals and one transfer) was reasonable, as the cause and the measure specifically affected the functioning of that workplace and not others. Furthermore, the Supreme Court holds that the Statute of Workers (ET) does not require exhausting internal redeployment possibilities within the company. The fact that the workplaces are perfectly differentiated, located in different towns, and providing services for distinct contracts, allows the company to proceed with dismissals at one workplace, while simultaneously resorting to an ETT at another workplace to hire workers of the same professional category and perform the same tasks. This thus grants the company greater flexibility in managing its workforce.