It is clear that society is rapidly moving towards a fully digitalised era which, as expected, is bringing about major changes in the world of labour relations.
The most prominent and currently implemented result of this technological development is teleworking.
Despite the fact that this matter has already been regulated in Law 10/2021, on remote work, the reality is that in practice we continue to encounter many uncertain scenarios that must be interpreted and analysed on a case-by-case basis.
One such issue is determining which judge has jurisdiction in labour matters when all or part of the work is carried out by teleworking.
This question was addressed by the High Court of Justice of Madrid in its ruling 748/2023, of 30 November, on territorial jurisdiction in matters of dismissal.
In that case, the worker was assigned to the Tudela workplace, although he filed the lawsuit in Madrid, which was the place from which he teleworked.
The general rule establishes that the competent judge is the one in the place where the services were provided or that of the defendant’s domicile, at the plaintiff’s choice. This creates uncertainties for teleworkers who, thanks to this modality, can work from practically anywhere.
Law 10/2021, for its part, establishes in its Third Additional Provision that “in remote work, the domicile of reference for the purposes of considering the competent Labour authority will be the one stated as such in the employment contract and, failing that, the domicile of the company or of the physical workplace or centre”.
From the above, it can only be concluded the intention of the legislator is from the legal standpoint, that the work is understood to be performed in the physical centre where part of the working day is carried out and, in the eyes of the Labour Authority, in the location specified in the telework agreement or, failing that, the place where the service is physically rendered in person.
This is therefore a special rule which leads to the conclusion that in those cases in which the provision of services is carried out in hybrid form, the place where the in-person work is carried out will determine the territorial jurisdiction of the competent court. In cases where the entire provision of services is teleworked, the agreed location between the parties will prevail.
Therefore, in the specific case, the Court concluded that the competent court was the court of Tudela (Navarra) and not Madrid.
