An employee who has worked at a company for at least one year and who has not been on voluntary leave for at least four years, is entitled to
The voluntary leave of absence provided for in the Workers' Statute shall entitle the worker to retain only a preferential right to reinstatement in vacancies of the same or a similar category to his or her own that exist or arise in the company.
Written by Josep Conesa
Employment and bankruptcy lawyer
Within this provision, it is worth highlighting the emphasis placed by the legislator on specifying that voluntary leave "only" retains a "preferential" right to reinstatement in vacancies that may exist in the company which are of the same or similar category to his or her own.
It follows that it has not come to recognise an automatic and unconditional right to reinstatement, nor even a right without any other qualification, but a right to which it expressly assigns the adjective "preferential", to mean that it is simply a matter of recognising a preference, primacy or advantage over another person, when it comes to filling any vacancy of the same or similar category that may exist in the company.
This means that, once the worker applies for reinstatement, the company must inform the worker of any new recruitment or vacancy for posts of the same or a similar category.
In other words,
The ruling of STS 12/02/2015, specifies that once the worker on leave has made the request for reinstatement, the company may not proceed to fill posts of the same or a similar category:
In the event of non-compliance with the obligation to reinstate the worker, that worker will have the right to claim unfair dismissal on the grounds that it is the company that has terminated the contract.
The workers on leave would not be entitled to compensation if the company closed the workplace, according to the Supreme Court ruling of 25 October 2000 (rcud 3606/1998, Sala General). This ruling rejected the claim for compensation for collective dismissal due to the closure of the workplace of the plaintiff workers, who had taken voluntary leave of absence on their own free will, carrying out other professional activities in such a situation. The Court argued, in essence, that "the loss of a job that is being performed and which ordinarily constitutes the worker's livelihood is not the same as the loss of the expectant right to occupy a vacancy in the company in which services were provided, and which the worker left, typically in order to carry out another job or another professional activity".
If you would like to find out about our services to help you legally, please don't hesitate to get in touch:
Case law concerning voluntary leave of absence: