An employee's informal expression of dissent as a protected act. The scope of Protection Against Retaliation

Commentary on Supreme Court Ruling 562/2026 of 23 June

Abstract

Supreme Court Ruling 562/2026 of 23 June confirms that the dismissal of an employee six days after she opposed the employer's attempt to require her to work on certain Saturdays was null and void. The ruling concerns a borderline situation regarding protection against retaliation, since the employee had neither submitted a formal written complaint nor announced legal proceedings. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court considered that her expressed disagreement, the reference to a document signed «not in agreement», the employer's suggestion that she seek information and advice, the close temporal connection with the dismissal and the absence of any proven disciplinary cause constituted sufficient prima facie evidence. The ruling reinforces a functional interpretation of protection against retaliation, while making clear that not every complaint or disagreement raised within the undertaking is constitutionally protected. The employee's conduct must have sufficient legal substance to be recognisable as the exercise or prospective defence of employment rights.