Quiet quitting or workplace harassment: the fine red line
In today's work environment, dismissals no longer always present themselves in a direct and evident way. An increasingly widespread practice is the so-called “quiet quitting” or quiet firing, a strategy through which companies indirectly force the departure of the employee without resorting to a formal dismissal or compensation. Fernando Vizcaíno de Sas, a partner at ECIJA and one of the leading litigators in employment law in Spain, warns about this trend and alerts to the fine line that separates it from workplace harassment.
Quiet quitting involves creating a hostile or demotivating work environment, with the aim of encouraging the employee to voluntarily leave their position. It is a formula that, in practice, allows some companies to reduce their workforce without assuming the costs of a legal dismissal, such as compensations or formal procedures.
According to Vizcaíno, this tactic can manifest in various ways: gradual reduction of responsibilities, isolation of the employee from the rest of the team, lack of feedback or professional recognition, changes in the work environment, or assignment of irrelevant tasks. “It is a covert way of inviting the employee to leave, without facing consequences and without invoking the legal repercussions of an objective or disciplinary dismissal,” the lawyer explains.
The consequences for the employee can be significant. From problems with professional self-esteem to high levels of anxiety, economic insecurity, and, in many cases, deterioration of mental health. Additionally, if the employee voluntarily resigns, they lose the right to receive compensation, which exacerbates their personal and financial situation.
Legally, the figure of quiet quitting is not regulated as such in Spain, but it can have legal consequences for companies. A dismissal must be communicated in writing and respond to objective or disciplinary causes. When these conditions are not met, the practice can be deemed illegal, and the employee can challenge it in court. In such cases, this opens the door to claim compensation and even nullification of the dismissal with the obligation to reinstate.
Fernando Vizcaíno emphasizes that “the border between quiet quitting and what is known as mobbing (workplace harassment) is very fine.” Currently, the regulatory framework offers tools for employee defense, such as internal reporting channels (whistleblowing), as well as guarantees of nullification of dismissal in cases of infringement of fundamental rights. “These measures mean that covert tactics employed by companies do not always succeed and, in many cases, backfire against them,” he concludes.
The proliferation of quiet quitting situations represents a challenge for labor relations in Spain, as it calls into question the culture of dignity at work and corporate transparency. From ECIJA, there is an emphasis on the need for companies to strengthen their labour compliance programs and promote respectful work environments, avoiding legal and reputational risks. With the rise of these practices, the scrutiny of courts and the proactive action of legal departments become crucial factors to ensure a fair balance between business interests and the protection of employee rights.
Consult the published article here.
