The war that is devastating Palestine and claiming thousands of lives in Middle East It is having a strong echo on social networks. Internet users – with more or less followers – have been expressing their opinions for weeks, both in favor of the Palestinian cause and the Israeli invasion. A conflict on which several footballers of international prestige have also taken a position, such as the former Real Madrid striker – today at Al-Ittihad Jeddah in the Saudi league -, Karim Benzema. A tweet of his criticizing the “unjust bombings” of Gazans earned him a thinly veiled accusation of having terrorist links from the French Interior Minister.
Lesser-known or directly anonymous personalities have also said theirs about the conflict in the Middle East, with direct consequences for their professional career. Within Israel and also beyond its borders. In the United States, dismissals of workers for their support of the Palestinian side are increasing. Could something similar happen in Spain? What consequences can posting a tweet for or against one side or the other have for an employee’s future job?
The Spanish courts have issued rivers of ink about freedom of expression, its limits and to what extent a company can punish or dismiss an employee for their opinions, expressed either in the workplace or outside of it. The freedom of expression and ideological They are fundamental rights included in the Constitution and that companies cannot restrict… although not all comments made can be considered ‘freedom of expression’.
Not all companies see with the same eyes that their employees express a political opinion and in the direction of the Banque Chaabi du Maroc It did not sit well that the director of one of its branches in Madrid attended a protest against the Moroccan government and in defense of the rights of the citizens of the Rif. “Are you a government or a gang of criminals?” The employee, who appeared in his workplace in his profile photo, wrote on his Facebook account.
Three days later the bank opened a file against him, alleging the reputational damage caused and subsequently informed him of his dismissal. This past July, the constitutional Court: “In the cases of companies with neutral activities […] “They do not allow the employer to demand from the worker more than compliance with the obligations derived from the employment contract that unites them.”
That is, if the ultimate goal of a company is not to disseminate specific ideas, its employees are not obliged to express the same opinion as management and management cannot censor them for expressing them. For this reason, the TC ruled the annulment of the dismissal and forced the bank to reinstate the worker. Taking the case to the Palestine-Israel conflict, a company would incur an illegality by dismissing an employee who went to a demonstration or expressed an opinion on their social networks in favor of one side or the other.
“Ideological” companies
A different case would be in the case of companies legally considered “ideological”, that is, whose ultimate goal seeks to promote an idea. For example, a political party. It was the case of EuiAwhich in 2015 fired one of its communications managers for criticizing the party leadership through his Twitter account.
Dismissal that the TSJ of Catalonia considered appropriate, since “it is not the same as a militant criticizing the political position of his party on a certain issue.” […] that the person most responsible for its communication do so, given that his right to freedom of expression, from the moment he decided to sign his employment contract, by his own decision, was limited or modulated in favor of the fundamental rights that also assist the company, among which is the right to honor, and to keep its ideology and external image intact,” according to the ruling.
Another famous case was the signing by FC Barcelona of the player Sergi Guardiola for its subsidiary. The same day that his incorporation was announced, some of his messages went viral on Twitter in which he said, among other things, “whore Catalonia” or “Hala Madrid.” Barça terminated his contract the same day, invoking that his statutory principles included the “Catalan nature of the Club.” That is, if, for example, a foundation’s main mission is to promote the interests of the State of Israel and one of its employees tweets in favor of the Palestinian cause, it would be legal to dismiss him.
However, the company should be able to prove in detail that said employee has violated the entity’s founding values and not limit itself to arguing generically that he has done so. It was the case judged by the Constitutional Court in 1985 of a teacher at the Lestonnac school in Mollet de Vallés, who was dismissed for “carrying out her professional activity in a way that does not conform to the ideology”; that ruled the center. Here the magistrates censured the school, demanding to say how exactly the teacher’s teaching differed from common values.
The difference between giving an opinion and insulting
Some social media users express their opinion on the conflict between Israel and Palestine based on data, reflections, respect and critical debate. Others, while expressing their point of view, also insult, denigrate or even wish death on those who think differently. The difference between giving an opinion and insulting can be especially relevant in court in the case of a company deciding to fire one of its workers because of his political opinions.
Related news
There are many proven cases of companies that have penalized or even fired workers because they considered that their comments on social networks penalized the company’s reputation and could harm the business. For example, an ambulance company fined one of its drivers for uploading videos to his Tiktok channel criticizing the company’s practices. And the TSJ of Catalonia agreed with the worker, since he considered that his videos were not insulting and his complaints were protected by freedom of expression.
Insult is a key boundary. In October 2022, the TSJ of Asturias ruled as appropriate for the dismissal of a worker who was recorded on video wearing a company polo shirt and describing the store’s customers as “sons of bitches“. According to the Asturian magistrates estimatedin those words “there is no criticism or opinion, just a repeated insult by the plaintiff to the company’s clients” that “compromised the image of the company before the public in general and before those mentioned in particular.”