In this jurisprudential watch for March, we offer you a selection of judgments on various topics, including the impact on the amount of dismissal compensation due to continuous work stoppage following a commuting accident, the consequences of an unfinished project to create a competitor company, the effects of the jurisprudential reversal on ongoing legal actions, flexibility clauses, labor costs, and disclosure of an employee’s address without consent.
Enjoy reading.
Work Stoppage Due to Commuting Accident: Impact on Dismissal Compensation
High Court of Labor, March 11, 2026, No. 24-13.123
Key Points:
The period of work stoppage due to a commuting accident is not counted towards the length of service for calculating the legal dismissal compensation.
Case Details:
An employee terminated his work contract on August 20, 2020, citing employer negligence. The court awarded him full legal dismissal compensation without deducting the period of work stoppage due to a commuting accident in 2017.
The employer appealed, but the Supreme Court ruled that unless there was a more favorable contractual provision, periods of sick leave are not considered in calculating the legal dismissal compensation, except in cases of work accidents or occupational diseases. Since commuting accidents are not exceptions, the absence of the employee cannot be included in the service length used to calculate the dismissal compensation.
Unfair Competition
High Court of Labor, January 28, 2026, No. 24-16.027
Key Points:
The active involvement in creating a competitor company, even if unfinished, constitutes a serious offense leading to the termination of employment.
Case Details:
An employee was dismissed for participating in creating a competitor company. Despite contesting the dismissal, the court upheld it as legitimate, citing breach of commitment to the current employer.
Paid Leave, Illness, and New Appeals by the Employee
High Court of Labor, February 21, 2026, No. 24-13.061
Key Points:
New legal developments may not always allow reopening of cases in appeal proceedings.
Case Details:
A case involving requests for additional compensation during an appeal based on a legal change met with significant challenges due to the requirement of consolidated claims in the appellate process.
Renewal of Temporary Contract
High Court of Labor, February 18, 2026, No. 24-21.575
Key Points:
Flexibility clauses in contracts do not exempt the formalization of contract renewal before the initial term ends.
Case Details:
A contract dispute arose when a new mission contract was signed after the initial term with a flexibility clause expired, prompting legal scrutiny.
Labor Costs
High Court of Labor, February 18, 2026, No. 24-14.172
Key Points:
A lending company remains the employer of the employee during the loan period.
Case Details:
A complex case involving cross-border employment raised questions about contract responsibilities and legal obligations.
Modification of Work Schedule
High Court of Labor, February 4, 2026, No. 24-17.033
Key Points:
Changing work schedules without employee consent may lead to contract modification and legal implications.
Case Details:
A case highlighting the importance of respecting employees’ rights when implementing changes in work schedules.
Privacy Rights of Employees
High Court of Labor, February 11, 2026, No. 24-18.087
Key Points:
Disclosure of an employee’s home address without consent violates their privacy rights.
Case Details:
A case focused on the responsibilities of employers to protect employees’ privacy rights and avoid unauthorized disclosures.
These cases offer insights into legal nuances affecting the workplace and employee rights.
