Individual Redundancy – Grounds for the Dismissal
Judgment of the Lisbon Court of Appeal of 27 May 2026
Case No: 13152/24.5T8LRS. L1-4
In this judgment, the Lisbon Court of Appeal held that, where the redundancy of a position is based on structural grounds, the restructuring of the productive organisation must stem from reasons that are imposed upon the company — namely competitive demands, the need to adapt to the market, or other external circumstances. This ground does not, however, cover situations in which the company freely chooses to reorganise its productive structure with the aim of achieving greater profitability. In such a scenario, the cost reduction resulting from the elimination of one or more employees' remuneration does not, in itself, constitute valid grounds for the redundancy of the respective positions.
Reinstatement of Employee – Assumption of Costs by the Employee
Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of 27 May 2026
Case No: 19455/24.1T8LSB. L1. S1
The Supreme Court of Justice addressed the situation of an employee who, after having his dismissal declared unlawful, opts for reinstatement in the company of origin, but has, in the meantime, entered into a contract (whether an employment contract or a service agreement) with another entity that prevents him from resuming functions immediately. The Court considered that, where simultaneous performance of the contract that is revived through reinstatement and the contract entered into in the meantime proves impossible, it is up to the employee to terminate the subsequent relationship and bear the respective costs.
The Supreme Court of Justice further stressed that the clauses of a contract to which the employer of origin employer (obliged to reinstate the employee) is not a party, namely notice periods or retention clauses, cannot be relied on against that employer, and should not be invoked to delay or condition the effectiveness of the reinstatement.
Individual Redundancy – Practical Impossibility of Maintaining the Employment Relationship
Judgment of the Porto Court of Appeal of 3 June 2026
Case No: 4106/24.2T8MTS.P1
The Labour Code establishes, as a condition for the lawfulness of a redundancy dismissal, the practical impossibility of maintaining the employment relationship, which is deemed to exist where the employer has no other position compatible with the employee's professional category.
The Porto Court of Appeal emphasised, on the one hand, that the existence of compatible positions in other companies within the group to which the employer belongs does not preclude the lawfulness of the dismissal, as the assessment of the impossibility of maintaining the employment relationship is confined solely to the organisational structure of the entity that hired the employee; and, on the other hand, that the employer is not obliged to offer the employee placement in available positions with a different functional content from their own and which would require the employer to provide the employee with the qualifications and professional skills necessary for their performance, as there is, in this context, no duty of professional retraining incumbent upon the employer.
Remote Surveillance Means
Judgment of the Lisbon Court of Appeal of 17 June 2026
Case No: 2266/25.4T8TVD. L1-4
In this judgment, the Lisbon Court of Appeal stresses that the consultation of geolocation data (GPS) of a vehicle assigned to an employee, with the purpose of verifying whether the employee was actually carrying out the visits to clients indicated in his daily activity reports, constitutes a form of monitoring of professional performance prohibited by article 20 of the Labour Code and constitutes a very serious administrative offence, regardless of whether the employee has given consent to the use of the data and even if the consultation of such data has taken place in the employee’s presence.
Flexible Working Hours – Conflict of Rights
Judgment of the Porto Court of Appeal of 2 June 2026
Case No: 18312/23.3T8PRT.P1
In this judgment, the Porto Court of Appeal draws a distinction between the right to flexible working hours in itself and the specific schedules and days off comprised therein, holding that the regime provided for in the Labour Code does not oblige the employer to accept, without more, the specific schedule and days off indicated by the requesting employee, nor to keep unchanged the flexible schedules already assigned to other employees, provided there is a justifying reason, as is the case with a conflict of rights of the same nature.
The Court clarified that a conflict of rights cannot be resolved automatically to the detriment of the employee who submitted the request last, nor to the detriment of the employer, and that the latter may set schedules and days off on terms different from those sought by the employees, insofar as that decision is substantiated and guided by the equitable safeguarding of the conflicting rights.
Limits of CITE’s Intervention
Judgment of the Lisbon Court of Appeal of 17 June 2026
Case No: 681/25.2T8LRS. L1-4
In this judgment, the Lisbon Court of Appeal concluded that CITE - Commission for Equality in Labour and Employment had exceeded the scope of its competence when issuing a prior opinion concerning the dismissal of a breastfeeding employee, given that it had ruled on whether or not there was just cause for the dismissal and on whether or not the employer had rebutted the presumption set out in Article 63(2) of the Labour Code (according to which a dismissal on grounds attributable to a breastfeeding employee is presumed to have been carried out without just cause). According to the Lisbon Court of Appeal, CITE's intervention should have been limited to analysing the possible discrimination of the employee on the basis of her breastfeeding status – that is, whether other employees who had committed identical infractions, but who were not in a situation of parental protection, would have been subject to different sanctions.
