Cómo se resuelven los despidos durante los periodos de prueba

During the probationary period, companies must inform workers about the terms of their contract, although courts have already established guidelines through rulings on discriminatory practices or procedural defects. Some companies have treated the probationary period as a quick way to terminate contracts with minimal legal risk.

However, these decisions are now under intense scrutiny by courts when formal flaws, signs of discrimination, or fundamental rights violations are detected. The government has reinforced transparency in labor conditions with a decree, requiring companies to more precisely define the probationary period and evaluation criteria. This comes after four years of transposing European directives into Spanish law, as courts have increasingly scrutinized business decisions made during the probationary period.

Despite its continued validity as a tool to assess a worker's professional adaptation and suitability, recent judicial resolutions indicate that the first weeks of an employment relationship are not immune to judicial oversight when formal flaws, signs of discrimination, or fundamental rights violations are present. Javier Reyes, a senior partner at Bécquer Abogados, explains that while the probationary period still allows companies to terminate employment without a disciplinary or objective cause, recent jurisprudence and judicial doctrine demonstrate that it can no longer be considered an area free from judicial control.

As a result, conflicts over the proper use of the probationary period are becoming more common, with businesses now facing increased challenges in defending their termination decisions. These battles will be bolstered by the government's new transparency measures, which provide clearer evidence of whether dismissals are based on professional reasons or other motives.

Reyes emphasizes that if the probationary period is not properly stipulated in the contract, the termination loses its protection and may be deemed null or improper. Additionally, courts are placing greater emphasis on circumstances such as temporary disability or pregnancy, where the company fails to prove objective reasons unrelated to personal factors.

In such cases, dismissals may be considered invalid, requiring the worker's rehire and compensation for unpaid wages. This evolving legal landscape is compelling companies to exercise even greater caution. Simply invoking the non-completion of the probationary period is no longer sufficient; businesses must now demonstrate that their decisions are genuinely based on professional criteria rather than personal circumstances.

The main recommendation is to carefully stipulate the probationary period from the outset and, if termination is chosen, provide objective evidence that the decision is based on a lack of professional adaptation or suitability rather than personal factors. According to Reyes, this norm increases transparency but does not substantially alter the grounds for terminating the probationary period or render business dismissals null.