The Minister of Equality, Ana Redondo, announced this Thursday in Congress that the government would “quickly” modify the “technical” error introduced in the organic law of parity and that since August 22, it authorizes the dismissal of any person who requests or benefits from an adaptation of the day – such as teleworking – to be able to reconcile.We are already preparing it for next week” he assured.
Redondo made the announcement during his appearance in the Lower House to explain the error, which also harms those who take advantage of the five-day leave to care for a sick family member. These “shields” were introduced a year ago and established that the dismissal of people covered by these hypotheses – or who had simply requested it – would be declared null and void.
This clarified the legal situation of these dismissals and, according to the Ministry of Labor, the right to conciliation was guaranteed. However, many jurists warned of an increase in the “picaresque” of people who requested this adaptation to avoid being dismissed. This debate was interrupted by the repeal of the provision, in an amendment introduced in the parliamentary process of the parity law.
This change was promoted by Egalité, which sought to correct another previous error that had eliminated another shield, that of victims of sexual assault, introduced in the Only Yes is Yes law of 2022 but erased in the Trans law of 2023. But equality presented a text removing protection for workers who request conciliation.
A mistake
A modification that passed all the filters of the government and parliamentary groups, since the amendment was signed by the PSOE and Sumar, voted in Congress and the Senate and no one detected the problem until the law reached the BOO on August 2 and they were. It was the lawyers themselves who sounded the alarm.
The repeal came into force on August 22 and has caused uncertainty among workers and companies. In recent days, Ana Redondo has recognized what happened as “an unwanted mistake.” “There will be no helplessness for workers,” he commented in statements collected by Servimedia, because in addition to the new standard, there are resources such as the Workers’ Statute, the “principle of compensation” and the “very guaranteed jurisprudence” for what workers can receive.
The problem with this thesis is that the reality of the case law is much more complex and judges make different interpretations. Precisely, the provision was introduced to guarantee an “objective nullity” beyond any discussion. This is what the workers have lost, at least until the government definitively corrects the error, if possible without introducing others.
