{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-11-07T02:11:28.873Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"spain","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"2025","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":1,"coverage":{"cases":1,"countries":1,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":0,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":1,"regulatory":0,"minors":0,"coreRelations":0,"contextualRelations":0,"mixedRelations":0,"unknownRelations":1,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":1},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2025-bilbao-court-rules-draughtsmans-dismissal-unfair-after-employer-cited-ai-tools-it-had-not-shown-in-use","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'El Tribunal de Instancia de Bilbao ha declarado improcedente el despido objetivo de un delineante mecánico después de que la empresa justificara su salida, entre otros motivos, por la implantación de nuevas tecnologías y herramientas de Inteligencia Artificial'; 'El despido se produjo el 31 de octubre de 2025'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'La empresa explicó que estaba inmersa en un proceso de transformación digital y que había empezado a trabajar con la metodología Model Based Definition (MBD) , junto con otras soluciones de Inteligencia Artificial.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'al declarar improcedente el cese de un delineante mecánico cuya empresa justificó su despido asegurando que un software de IA podía realizar sus funciones con un ahorro superior al 80%'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'La Compañía ha apostado por la innovación continua , instaurando nuevos sistemas de Inteligencia Artificial (\"IA\") que permiten automatizar tareas técnicas anteriormente realizadas por personal especializado'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"The employer dismissed a mechanical draughtsman on 31 October 2025, justifying the dismissal, among other reasons, by its introduction of new technologies and artificial-intelligence tools.","causal_attribution":"The employer's justification as recorded in the dismissal letter and judgment, relayed by the outlets; one origin (the judgment)."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'La compañía también alegó que las licencias de estas herramientas costaban 4.725 euros al año, mientras que el salario bruto anual del trabajador ascendía a 29.871 euros'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Había adquirido tres licencias por 4.725 euros anuales , mientras que el salario bruto anual del trabajador ascendía a 29.871 euros, según los cálculos incluidos en la carta de despido.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The employer put the cost of the tool licences at 4,725 euros a year against the worker's gross annual salary of 29,871 euros and argued that the saving exceeded 80%.","causal_attribution":"The employer's figures from its dismissal letter as relayed by the outlets; one origin."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'El Tribunal de Instancia de Bilbao ha declarado el despido improcedente porque la compañía no demostró ni las pérdidas económicas ni la implantación real de esas herramientas.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'El caso llegó al Tribunal de Instancia de Bilbao que en su sentencia 252/2026 ( ECLI:ES:TIS:2026:2026 ) dio parcialmente la razón al trabajador al declarar el despido como improcedente'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The Bilbao court declared the dismissal unfair because the company proved neither its economic losses nor the real implementation of the tools it cited.","causal_attribution":"The court's finding as relayed by the outlets; the judgment text was not read; one origin."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'una trabajadora declaró que había recibido formación para usarla pero que nunca había llegado a trabajar con ella'; 'fechado en junio de 2026 , pero el despido se había producido siete meses antes , en octubre de 2025'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Una empleada que había recibido formación en el sistema MBD reconoció que nunca había llegado a trabajar con él .'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"Evidence before the court included a trained employee's testimony that she had never worked with the new design tool and an implementation report dated June 2026, seven months after the dismissal.","causal_attribution":"Testimony and documents as summarised from the judgment by the outlets; one origin."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Al declarar el despido improcedente , la empresa debe elegir en cinco días entre readmitir al trabajador o indemnizarle. La indemnización por improcedencia se calculó en 12.330,56 euros .'; 'Como ya había cobrado 6.452,85 en el momento del despido, la cantidad pendiente se queda en 5.877,71 euros.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'El juzgado, sin embargo, rechazó que el despido fuera nulo por vulneración de derechos fundamentales.'; 'Tampoco aceptó reconocer al trabajador una categoría profesional superior ni las diferencias salariales que reclamaba'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"'una reciente sentencia, fechada de principios de junio y compartida en redes sociales por el abogado laboralista Pere Vidal'; 'Es por ello que la empresa deberá pagar una compensación de 12.330,56 euros al trabajador damnificado.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"The company must choose between reinstating the worker and paying 12,330.56 euros in compensation, less the 6,452.85 euros already paid; the court rejected his claims that the dismissal was void and for a higher job category.","causal_attribution":"Remedy as relayed from the judgment; one origin. Whether the judgment is final is not stated."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'La decisión de reducir la plantilla no afectó únicamente a este empleado, ya que la compañía también prescindió de otros tres trabajadores de la misma categoría. En total, cuatro delineantes fueron despedidos.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"EmpleoJob reports that the company dismissed three other draughtsmen as well, four in total.","causal_attribution":"Single outlet; the reasons given for the other three dismissals are not described."}],"effects":[{"label":"draughtsman dismissed in a restructuring his employer justified with AI design tools","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.noticiastrabajo.es/empleo/derechos-trabajador/le-despiden-porque-una-nueva-tecnologia-hacia-su-trabajo-un-80-mas-barato-la-justicia-declara-el-despido-improcedente/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"es","translation_note":"Read in Spanish by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-16 and translated by the research agent (an AI) into English; no human translator or reviewer was involved. NoticiasTrabajo report on the Bilbao judgment, 25 September 2026; HTTP 200, full text read. The judgment itself was not read.","independence_group":"bilbao-tribunal-de-instancia-judgment-draughtsman"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.hoyaragon.es/bolsillo/despedido-fulminantemente-porque-ia-trabajo-80-mas-barato-juez-declara-despido-como-improcedente-sienta-precedente/20260925130002147288.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"es","translation_note":"Read in Spanish by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-16 and translated by the research agent (an AI) into English; no human translator or reviewer was involved. Hoy Aragón report on the same judgment, 25 September 2026; HTTP 200, full text read.","independence_group":"bilbao-tribunal-de-instancia-judgment-draughtsman"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://as.com/actualidad/sociedad/apelan-al-comodin-de-la-ia-para-ahorrarse-30000-euros-de-sueldo-el-trabajador-reclama-y-la-justicia-sentencia-con-improcedente-f202609-n/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"es","translation_note":"Read in Spanish by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-16 and translated by the research agent (an AI) into English; no human translator or reviewer was involved. AS (Diario AS) report on the same judgment, September 2026; HTTP 200, full text read.","independence_group":"bilbao-tribunal-de-instancia-judgment-draughtsman"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://empleojob.es/lo-despiden-porque-una-inteligencia-artificial-hace-su-trabajo-un-80-mas-barato-y-en-la-mitad-de-tiempo-y-ahora-tendran-que-readmitirlo-o-indemnizarlo/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"es","translation_note":"Read in Spanish by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-16 and translated by the research agent (an AI) into English; no human translator or reviewer was involved. EmpleoJob report on the same judgment, which it identifies as judgment 252/2026 of the Tribunal de Instancia de Bilbao, 15 October 2026; HTTP 200, full text read.","independence_group":"bilbao-tribunal-de-instancia-judgment-draughtsman"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.elperiodico.com/es/economia/20260829/inteligencia-artificial-condena-empresa-excusa-despedir-trabajadores-sentencia-133759731","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"es","translation_note":"Read in Spanish by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-16 and translated by the research agent (an AI) into English; no human translator or reviewer was involved. El Periódico report, 29 August 2026, on the same judgment (it gives the same 12,330.56-euro compensation), which it attributes to Bilbao social court No. 7, dates to early June 2026 and says a labour lawyer shared on social media; it calls the worker an engineer where the other outlets say mechanical draughtsman; HTTP 200, full text read.","independence_group":"bilbao-tribunal-de-instancia-judgment-draughtsman"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["work","justice"],"unknowns":["The exact date of the judgment (El Periódico says early June 2026) and whether it is final or under appeal.","Whether the court was social court No. 7 (El Periódico) and whether the worker was a draughtsman or an engineer: El Periódico calls him an engineer, the other outlets a mechanical draughtsman.","Which AI tools the employer had in mind; the reports name only the model-based-definition method and unspecified AI tools.","Whether the three other draughtsmen were dismissed on the same AI-related grounds.","The name of the employer, which the reports do not give."],"geography":{"basis":"El Periódico describes the employer as a Basque company ('la compañía vasca'), placing the employment relationship and the dismissal in Spain; the case was heard by the Tribunal de Instancia de Bilbao. The worker's residence is not stated and is left unknown.","court_countries":["ES"],"event_countries":["ES"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a consequential-response case: an employer dismissed a draughtsman on 31 October 2025, citing in its dismissal letter AI design tools that it said did his work for over 80% less, and a Bilbao labour court ruled the dismissal unfair because the company had not shown the tools were in real use. All facts come from press reports of the judgment, which was not read.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-16"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The harm is the employer's dismissal of a draughtsman in response to its stated adoption of AI tools. According to the judgment as reported, the dismissal letter cited the introduction of new technologies and artificial-intelligence tools, together with a model-based-definition design method, and argued that the tools cost over 80% less than his salary; the court found that the company had not shown the tools were actually implemented. No source says an AI system produced any output about the worker, so the relation is unknown under the consequential-response exemption.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["unknown"]},"name":"Bilbao court rules a draughtsman's dismissal unfair after his employer justified it with AI design tools it did not show were in use","summary":"A company that designs and manufactures industrial furnaces dismissed a mechanical draughtsman on 31 October 2025 for objective reasons, citing a fall in business and the introduction of new technologies in its engineering department, including a model-based-definition design method and artificial-intelligence tools. According to press reports of the judgment, the dismissal letter put the cost of the tool licences at 4,725 euros a year against his gross annual salary of 29,871 euros and argued that the saving exceeded 80%. The social section of the Tribunal de Instancia de Bilbao declared the dismissal unfair, finding that the company had proved neither its economic losses nor the real implementation of the tools: an employee trained on the new method testified that she had never worked with it, and an implementation report was dated June 2026, seven months after the dismissal. The company must choose between reinstating the worker and paying 12,330.56 euros in compensation, less the amount already paid; the court rejected his claims that the dismissal was void and for a higher job category. One outlet reports that four draughtsmen were dismissed in total. El Periódico, which reported the same judgment in August 2026, dates it to early June 2026 and quotes the dismissal letter's statement that the company had introduced new artificial-intelligence systems that automate technical tasks previously done by specialised staff. The judgment was not read, and whether it is final is not reported.","incidentDate":"2025-10-31","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-08-29","aiSystem":"Unspecified artificial-intelligence design tools and a model-based-definition (MBD) design method that, according to the employer's dismissal letter as reported, could automate part of a draughtsman's work; no product is named","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI design tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The draughtsman lost his job in a dismissal his employer justified with AI design tools; a court later declared the dismissal unfair, according to press reports of the judgment.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"The claimant draughtsman (all four reports). EmpleoJob says three other draughtsmen were also dismissed, but no report describes their grounds, so they are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"ES","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"unknown","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.noticiastrabajo.es/empleo/derechos-trabajador/le-despiden-porque-una-nueva-tecnologia-hacia-su-trabajo-un-80-mas-barato-la-justicia-declara-el-despido-improcedente/","primarySourceLabel":"NoticiasTrabajo, 25 September 2026: dismissed because new technology and AI did his work 80% cheaper; court rules the dismissal unfair","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-16T03:07:02.743358+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-16T03:07:02.743358+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["dismissal","workplace-ai","labour-court","unfair-dismissal","spain","consequential-response"]}]}