Jurisprudence has repeatedly maintained that the threat of dismissal is not intimidation within the meaning of art. 1267 CC., understood as an unfair threat, to the extent that it constitutes a warning of the legitimate exercise of disciplinary power in the face of a clear offense.
However, other judicial pronouncements, with better criteria in my opinion, consider that deceptive machination is appreciated when the alleged decision to terminate the employment contract by the worker does not arise at his initiative, but at the request of the employer (or her circle of action), and, furthermore, it is offered to her unexpectedly and as an alternative to another decision equally terminating the employment contract that is presented to her as having a worse condition for her, which she must resolve immediately and in the only company from the hierarchical superior who presents the dilemma and the response is demanded and obtained in peremptory terms, the letter is written to the worker, in such a way that he only has to sign it. It meets all the necessary qualities to classify it as insidious behavior, carried out with the purpose of obtaining consent that would not otherwise be obtained.
PDF: 221220_opc-entre-baja-vol-y-desp-por-dt-para-diario-la-ley