Jobs Act: Reinstatement protection applies to cases of nullity of dismissal even if not “expressly” stated

The Constitutional Court ruled that the Jobs Act was constitutionally unlawful insofar as, in recognizing reinstatement protection in cases of nullity, provided by law, of the dismissal of workers hired on or after March 7, 2015, it limited it to nullities “expressly” defined”.

The court pointed out that the textual reference to “null dismissals,” contained in the delegated law, did not provide for-and thus did not allow for-a distinction between express and non-express nullities, but contemplated a distinction only for unjustified disciplinary dismissals.

The delegated legislature, on the contrary, introduced a distinction not only for the latter, but also within the scope of the cases of nullity provided for by law, differentiating according to the express (and thus textual), or non-express, character of the nullity.

From the declaration of constitutional illegitimacy of the censured norm, limited to the word “expressly,” it follows that the regime of null dismissal is the same, whether the express consequence of nullity occurs in the violated imperative provision or not textually, as long as a prohibition of dismissal is prescribed when certain conditions are met.