Article 41.3 of the Statute of Workers entitles the employee to ask for a termination of the contract with the right to receive a severance payment equal to 20 days of salary per year worked, if the company applies a substantial modification of working conditions that adversely affect the employee. In the present case, the employee asked for this after the company applied a reduction of the salary equal to a 3.87 %. However, the company rejected the severance payment since the reduction of the salary was not significantly negative. That is, such modification of working conditions does not imply a negative effect that must be proved by the employee.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the company:
1) Spanish case law has come to understand that the Statute of Workers requires, for indemnified termination of the contract, proof of the existence of the injury, giving the same treatment to all substantial modifications of working conditions, including that of the salary amount. This supposes that the damage must be credited with the burden of proof on the person who suffers it, and its existence cannot be presumed, since there is no legal provision permitting it.
2) For a logical, systematic and finalist interpretation of art.41 ET:
According to the logical interpretation, the existence of prejudice, required for the indemnified decision in the event of a substantial change in working conditions, is not required in cases of forced relocations, which evidences that in these cases the damage is proven.
Systematic interpretation leads to the conclusion that since evidence is required to prove a substantial modification, the sustained damages must be related. Otherwise, it would not establish the possibility of contractual termination that the Statute of Workers reserves for serious breaches of contract.
According to a finalist interpretation, the compensation is recognized for the damages caused by the substantial modification of the working conditions, damages that must be proven, as it would not be reasonable or proportional to sanction, with the indemnified termination, any modification that causes a minimum injury, as this would be contrary to the spirit of the rule that seeks the survival of the company in duress, which would be aggravated if all affected employees rescinded their contracts.