When an Agreement Is Not Enough to Validate the Procedure
In collective dismissal procedures, reaching an agreement during the consultation period usually provides companies with greater legal certainty. However, an agreement alone does not automatically validate the process.
For an agreement to be valid, it must be reached within a genuine negotiation process. This requires sufficient information, adequate time to analyse the documentation, the proper constitution of the representative committee and the absence of pressure that could affect the free will of the employees.
Judgment No. 320/2026 of the High Court of Justice of Murcia, dated 16 April 2026, analyses precisely this issue. In this case, the Labour Authority initiated ex officio proceedings to challenge the agreement reached between the company and the employees during a collective dismissal procedure.
The Court upheld the claim and declared the agreement null and void. The reason was not limited to a single factor. The Court identified coercion, the absence of genuine negotiation and several relevant procedural breaches.
Background of the Case
The proceedings began with an ex officio claim filed by the General Directorate of Labour of the Regional Ministry of Enterprise, Employment and Social Economy of the Region of Murcia.
The claim was brought against Auto Turbo CHRA, S.L. and affected nine employees included in a collective dismissal procedure based on economic grounds.
The company had notified the Labour Authority of the commencement of the procedure to terminate the employment contracts of those nine employees. The notification was submitted on 29 November 2025, although the termination agreement had already been signed the previous day, on 28 November 2025.
The central issue was whether the agreement reached during the consultation period could be considered valid or whether it had to be declared null because it had been obtained without genuine negotiation.
What Had Been Signed
The case file contained several documents.
First, a prior communication initiating the consultation period dated 24 November 2025. In that document, the company stated that it had decided to initiate a collective dismissal procedure based on economic grounds and that the consultation period would begin on 28 November.
Second, minutes recording the election of employees to form the negotiating committee, dated 28 November 2025.
Third, a communication addressed to employees, also dated 28 November 2025, formally notifying the opening of the consultation period.
Fourth, minutes of the meeting and conclusion of negotiations with an agreement, also dated 28 November 2025. In that document, the termination of the employment contracts of nine employees was agreed, effective from the same date.
Therefore, from a formal perspective, documentation existed. However, the issue was how, when and under what circumstances that documentation had been provided and signed.
Findings of the Labour Inspectorate
The Labour and Social Security Inspectorate issued a report on 22 December 2025.
According to the report, two affected employees appeared before the Inspectorate and explained that the company gathered the workforce on 28 November, at the end of the working day.
During that meeting, employees were informed that the company would close that same Saturday due to its financial situation.
They also stated that the company told them they had to sign the agreement if they wanted to receive their final outstanding salary payment. According to their statements, they were warned that, if they refused to sign, the company would probably be unable to cover further expenses or pay another salary.
The meeting lasted approximately 20 minutes. Afterwards, the employees signed the agreement and then their individual dismissal letters.
Furthermore, the employees denied having received any prior communication on 24 November. According to their statements, all documentation was actually provided on 28 November.
The Company’s Position
The company denied that any fraud, deception or coercion had occurred.
Its position was that the circumstances described by the Labour Authority had not taken place and that the agreement reached during the consultation period should be considered valid.
Furthermore, the company’s legal representative explained before the Inspectorate that the urgency of the procedure was due to the rejection of two credit insurance policies that the company had relied on to overcome its financial difficulties.
The representative also stated that the company administrator had verbally informed employees on 24 November of the intention to close the company and terminate employment contracts. However, he acknowledged that this verbal communication had not been documented.
The company also admitted that the complete ERE documentation had not been provided until 28 November. On that date, employees were informed that they could accept the termination procedure with effects at the end of the month or alternatively face insolvency proceedings, which could delay payment for several months due to the company’s lack of liquidity.
The First Issue: Fraud and Coercion
The Labour Authority argued that the company’s conduct could involve fraud and coercion.
The High Court of Justice of Murcia distinguishes between both concepts.
Regarding fraud, the Court recalls that it requires misleading statements or deceptive actions capable of inducing one party to enter into an agreement that they would not have accepted otherwise. It also requires a deliberate intention to deceive or cause harm.
In this case, the Court does not consider that fraud existed. Although the company failed to comply with certain legal requirements of the procedure, the Court does not consider that it was proven that the company deliberately attempted to deceive employees in order to cause harm or avoid its legal responsibilities.
However, the conclusion changes when analysing coercion.
Why Coercion Was Considered to Exist
The Court considers that coercion existed because the company linked the signing of the agreement to the payment of outstanding salaries.
The message conveyed to employees was particularly relevant: if they did not sign the agreement on that same day, payment of their outstanding wages could be delayed because insolvency proceedings would have to be initiated.
According to the Court, this pressure affected the employees’ genuine freedom to negotiate.
The employees did not sign as a result of a fully free and informed decision, but rather because of their vulnerable financial situation and fear of not receiving the amounts owed to them.
Therefore, in this case, coercion is not understood as physical force. Instead, it refers to psychological or economic pressure capable of influencing the employees’ free will.
The Court concludes that such conduct breached the obligation to negotiate in good faith during the consultation period.
Good Faith Negotiation in Collective Dismissals
Article 51 of the Spanish Workers’ Statute requires the parties involved in a collective dismissal procedure to negotiate in good faith with the aim of reaching an agreement during the consultation period.
Good faith is not merely a formal requirement. It requires genuine, meaningful negotiation aimed at analysing alternatives.
The consultation period must allow the parties to assess whether dismissals can be avoided, reduced or accompanied by measures mitigating their consequences.
For this reason, an agreement reached under pressure does not fulfil the legal purpose of the procedure.
The High Court of Justice of Murcia considers that the coercion identified affected the voluntary nature of the negotiation, the balance between the parties and the possibility of reaching a genuine agreement.
For this reason alone, the ex officio claim filed by the Labour Authority was already justified.
The Representative Committee Had to Be Established Beforehand
The judgment also analyses several procedural breaches.
The first relates to the establishment of the employees’ representative committee.
In collective dismissal procedures, the company must ensure that the representative committee of employees is properly constituted before formally communicating the opening of the consultation period.
In this case, although there was a document dated 24 November, it was proven that it was not actually provided to employees until 28 November. Furthermore, the minutes recording the election of employee representatives were also dated 28 November.
Therefore, the representative committee was not constituted sufficiently in advance to allow effective negotiation.
The Required Documentation Was Not Provided at the Beginning of the Procedure
The second breach concerned the mandatory documentation.
The company must provide the economic, technical, organisational or production-related documentation required from the beginning of the consultation period.
This documentation is not merely a formal requirement.
On the contrary, it allows employee representatives to understand the company’s actual situation and negotiate with sufficient information.
In this case, the Court considers it proven that employees did not have access, from the beginning of the consultation period, to the documentation required under Royal Decree 1483/2012.
This prevented informed negotiation.
Without sufficient information, there cannot be a genuine consultation period.
The First Meeting Did Not Respect the Minimum Three-Day Period
The third procedural breach concerns the timing of the consultation period.
Article 7.3 of Royal Decree 1483/2012 establishes that the first meeting of the consultation period cannot take place earlier than three days after employee representatives receive the opening communication and the required documentation.
This minimum period has a clear purpose: allowing employees to analyse the information, prepare proposals and obtain advice from legal or technical representatives.
In the case analysed, the documentation was provided on 28 November and the meeting took place on the same day.
Therefore, the mandatory three-day period was not respected.
The negotiation was reduced to an immediate meeting, without any real opportunity for analysis or preparation.
There Were Not at Least Two Negotiation Meetings
The fourth breach concerns the minimum number of meetings required.
Royal Decree 1483/2012 establishes that, during the consultation period, at least two meetings must normally take place, separated by an interval of no less than three calendar days and no more than six.
This requirement is not an empty formality.
Its purpose is to ensure that employee representatives have time to analyse information, consult advisers, propose alternatives and negotiate under balanced conditions.
In this case, everything was concentrated into a single meeting held on 28 November.
Therefore, there was no genuine negotiation process, but rather an immediate agreement.
The Thirty-Day Period Before the Dismissals Was Also Not Respected
The judgment identifies a fifth procedural breach.
Article 14.2 of Royal Decree 1483/2012 requires a minimum period of thirty days between the communication of the opening of the consultation period to the Labour Authority and the effective date of the dismissals.
In this case, the communication to the Labour Authority took place on 29 November 2025.
However, the dismissals had effective dates between 28 and 30 November 2025.
In other words, some terminations had effects even before the formal communication of the procedure to the Labour Authority.
The Court considers that this breach also contributes to the nullity of the agreement.
The Role of the Labour Authority
The case highlights an important point: the intervention of the Labour Authority is not merely a formal requirement.
In collective dismissal procedures, the Labour Authority must be able to perform its functions of supervision, monitoring and the search for possible solutions.
For this purpose, it must receive the relevant communications within the legally established deadlines and in the correct manner.
If a company communicates the procedure late, or only after dismissals have effectively already been decided, the institutional role of the Labour Authority becomes meaningless.
The judgment links this reasoning with recent Supreme Court doctrine, which has highlighted that late communication of the commencement of a collective dismissal procedure may result in the nullity of the employer’s decision.
Decision of the High Court of Justice of Murcia
The High Court of Justice of Murcia upheld the ex officio claim filed by the General Directorate of Labour.
As a consequence, it declared the agreement reached during the consultation period on 28 November 2025 null and void.
The company was ordered to comply with and accept this declaration.
The Court did not impose procedural costs.
The Key Legal Principle of the Judgment
The judgment establishes a clear principle: the consultation period in a collective dismissal procedure must be genuine.
It is not enough to gather employees, provide documentation, obtain signatures and close the procedure on the same day.
Nor is it sufficient to justify the accelerated process solely by referring to urgent financial difficulties.
The company must respect the legally established deadlines, provide the appropriate documentation, ensure the valid constitution of the representative committee and negotiate without pressuring employees’ decision-making.
When an agreement is obtained under pressure and without complying with the essential procedural guarantees, it may be declared null.
Why This Matters for Companies
This judgment is particularly relevant for companies facing serious financial difficulties.
Financial urgency does not eliminate the guarantees required in a collective dismissal procedure.
Even when a company is experiencing a critical situation, it must comply with the legally established process.
This includes preparing the necessary documentation correctly, respecting deadlines, notifying the Labour Authority and allowing employee representatives to negotiate with sufficient information.
Furthermore, companies must avoid communications that could be interpreted as pressure.
Linking the signing of an agreement to the payment of outstanding salaries may be considered coercion and may affect the validity of the employees’ consent.
Why This Matters for Human Resources Departments
For Human Resources departments, this judgment provides a clear warning.
Restructuring processes should not be managed as a predetermined decision that is simply communicated to employees.
They must be designed as negotiated procedures, properly documented and respectful of legal guarantees.
HR departments should coordinate with management, legal advisers and employee representatives.
They must also carefully control deadlines, documentation delivery and the traceability of communications throughout the process.
Where there is no existing employee representative body, the creation of the negotiating committee must be managed with particular care.
Any procedural irregularity may affect the validity of the entire collective dismissal procedure.
Best Practices in a Collective Dismissal Procedure
Before initiating a collective dismissal, the company should prepare a realistic timetable that allows all procedural requirements to be fulfilled.
The required documentation should be provided from the beginning and with sufficient time for analysis.
The company must also ensure that the representative committee is properly constituted before negotiations begin.
During the consultation period, the necessary meetings should be held and the content of each meeting should be properly documented.
Furthermore, the company should present clear proposals and remain open to possible alternatives.
These may include measures such as reducing the number of dismissals, relocation opportunities, improved compensation packages, alternative exit schedules or social support measures.
Finally, companies should avoid any type of pressure linked to outstanding salaries, immediate closure or threats of insolvency proceedings.
Information about the company’s financial situation may be communicated, but it cannot be used as a mechanism to force employees into signing an agreement.
The Consultation Period Cannot Be an Empty Formality
Judgment No. 320/2026 of the High Court of Justice of Murcia declares null the agreement reached during a collective dismissal procedure because there was no genuine negotiation process.
The company concentrated the delivery of documentation, the constitution of the representative committee, the negotiation meeting, the agreement and the individual dismissal letters within a timeframe incompatible with the legal guarantees required for collective dismissals.
Furthermore, the Court identified coercion because the signing of the agreement was linked to the payment of outstanding salaries and to the possibility of insolvency proceedings delaying those payments.
The lesson is clear: in a collective dismissal procedure, an agreement is only valid if it results from free, informed negotiation carried out in compliance with legal deadlines.
Business urgency does not justify removing the guarantees established to protect employees.
At Suárez de Vivero, we advise companies, international groups and Human Resources departments on restructuring processes, collective dismissals, consultation periods, negotiations with employee representatives, prevention of nullity risks and legal defence in employment proceedings.
Frequently Asked Questions About Collective Dismissals and Consultation Periods
What is the consultation period in a collective dismissal?
It is the negotiation phase between the company and employee representatives. Its purpose is to analyse the reasons for the dismissal, consider alternatives and reduce or mitigate its consequences.
Can an agreement reached during the consultation period be declared null?
Yes. An agreement may be declared null if it is reached through fraud, coercion, abuse of rights, or without a genuine and effective negotiation process.
What happened in this judgment?
The High Court of Justice of Murcia declared the agreement reached during a collective dismissal procedure null because it identified coercion, insufficient information, failure to comply with minimum deadlines and the absence of genuine negotiation.
Can urgent financial difficulties justify shortening the procedure?
No. Financial difficulties may justify the economic reasons behind a collective dismissal, but they do not eliminate the procedural guarantees required by law.
How many meetings must take place during the consultation period?
As a general rule, at least two meetings must be held, separated by the intervals established in Royal Decree 1483/2012, unless legally recognised exceptions apply.
When must the documentation for a collective dismissal be provided?
The required documentation must be provided from the beginning of the consultation period together with the opening communication.
Late delivery may prevent informed negotiation.
What role does the Labour Authority have?
The Labour Authority supervises the development of the consultation period and may intervene when irregularities are detected.
Its intervention requires that the relevant communications are made correctly and within the required deadlines.