A worker reports possible irregularities within the organization for which he works, goes to the authorities and, after they have learned his warnings, ends up being dismissed. This is the case of the former compliance officer of the Consorci d'Aigües de Tarragona (CAT), whose dismissal has just been declared null by a court in Tarragona.
The ruling, handed down on 29 October by Social Court number 1 of Tarragona, considers that the termination was retaliation related to the complaints the employee had filed against the entity. The ruling obliges the consortium to reinstate him and to pay him 8,319 euros corresponding to outstanding compensation, as well as an award of 10,000 euros in compensation for moral damages.
The resolution, brought forward this Saturday by La Vanguardia, puts the spotlight again on the protection of people who report possible irregularities within companies and public bodies, as well as on the labor consequences they may face for doing so.
From compliance officer to complainant before Antifrau
The worker was hired on 13 March 2023 to serve as compliance officer of the Consorci d'Aigües de Tarragona. His duties included supervising that the organization respected the law, detecting risks, and preventing possible conflicts of interest.
Six months after joining, in September 2023, he submitted to the board of directors a report in which he warned about various issues that, in his view, could breach regulations. Among them were possible irregularities related to water intake, contracting procedures, and the entity’s internal ethics.
Given the lack of response he denounced from the consortium, he later filed five reports with the Oficina Antifrau de Catalunya (OAC) and also went to the Public Prosecutor’s Office in Tarragona.
The Antifrau Office recognized the worker as a protected corruption whistleblower. This status granted him protection against potential retaliation arising from his reports.
The dismissal came after the reports
The management of the consortium opened a disciplinary proceeding against the worker for alleged acts of workplace and sexual harassment toward other employees. Five workers signed a written statement in which they denounced his conduct.
Nine days after initiating the proceeding, the entity decided to dismiss him.
However, the court considers the chronological sequence of events to be especially relevant. As stated in the judgment, the company knew of the accusations against the worker since December 2024, but there is no record that it acted accordingly until January 2025, after learning of his status as a protected whistleblower.
The magistrate also points out that no specific comment has been proven, sufficiently identified in terms of its content and circumstances, that would make it possible to justify the dismissal sanction. Nor does he consider the existence of a systematic pattern of harassment or discriminatory behavior to be demonstrated.
Based on these elements, the resolution concludes that the dismissal violated the worker’s protection against reprisals for reporting possible irregularities.
The protection of whistleblowers, at the center of the case
The case brings back to the table the application of Law 2/2023, on the protection of persons who report breaches of regulatory provisions and the fight against corruption.
This regulation, which transposes into the Spanish legal system the European directive on the protection of whistleblowers, establishes safeguards to prevent those who communicate possible breaches from suffering reprisals in their professional environment.
Among the protection measures is the prohibition on adopting harmful employment decisions against informants because they have filed a report. Dismissal, suspension, professional demotion, or certain modifications to working conditions may constitute reprisals when they are linked to that communication.
The judgment in the Consorci d'Aigües de Tarragona case applies this protection precisely in the workplace and considers that the dismissal cannot be upheld.
However, the nullity of the termination does not mean that all the irregularities reported by the worker have been judicially proven. The resolution rules on the legality of the dismissal and the violation of his rights, not on the truth of each of the warnings he conveyed to the authorities.
The ruling thus represents a new episode in the conflict between the former compliance officer and the consortium, and once again raises the debate about the real guarantees for those who decide to report possible irregularities from within an organization.