Skip to content
Faultline Prefer us on Google

Germany labournet.de

Labor court proceedings in Lisbon blocked since May 2023: Teleperformance Portugal, Google integration and the question of effective legal protection

Dossier "In May 2023, Marc S. Weidner filed a lawsuit against Teleperformance Portugal at the Lisbon Labor Court. He is suing because, according to his representation, there are significant claims for remuneration and differentials

By labournet.de 8 min read

Deutsch (original) ·Auto-translated to English

dossier

“In May 2023, Marc S. Weidner filed a lawsuit against Teleperformance Portugal at the Lisbon Labor Court. He is suing because, according to his account, significant claims for remuneration and differentials, bonus payments, reimbursements, bonuses, gratuities as well as claims from task and role development are outstanding. It is also about the legal classification of his work: According to the plaintiff, he was not just employed in a normal call center employment relationship, but was functionally largely integrated into the structures of Google Germany GmbH and Google LLC, while the employment law management was formally carried out by Teleperformance Portugal.(…) After a first hearing in June 2023, according to the plaintiff, the proceedings largely came to a standstill (…) The case now has existential consequences..." See Marc S. Weidner's full account of his case at the intersection of Big Tech, outsourced employment, precarious legal enforcement and institutional failure - as well as a fundraising campaign to secure the livelihood and legal defense of those affected:

  • Teleperformance/Google: 19 witnesses admitted - main hearing not until October 7, 2027 - support for the plaintiff remains necessaryNew
    “There is finally concrete progress in my case against Teleperformance Portugal: The Lisbon Labor Court has admitted the named witnesses and all evidence and sets of equipment and has now scheduled the main hearing. This brings forward a case whose significance goes beyond my personal demands. It is about enforcing European workers' rights even where employees are contractually assigned to a service provider but actually work in the work organization of a technology company. Success could encourage other employees in similar situations to also assert their claims.
    Nevertheless, the time card is still being played in order to put and maintain pressure on the plaintiff: the main hearing is not scheduled to begin until October 7, 2027.
    My lawsuit against Teleperformance Portugal has been before the court since May 22, 2023. It includes 96 numbered items of evidence, some of them extensive sets of documents, and names 19 witnesses. Essential documents are original artifacts from the Google systems in which I worked. With this I want to provide concrete evidence of who specified tasks, gave instructions, checked performance and actually organized my work.
    By order of July 17, 2026, announced on July 24, the court admitted the named witnesses and the submitted documents. All 19 named witnesses were therefore covered by the admission.
    On September 18, 2026, a meeting to prepare for the main hearing was scheduled for October 26, 2026. I already object to this scheduling as being late: there were 38 calendar days between the appointment and the meeting, while Article 62 Para. 2 of the Portuguese Labor Process Act provides for a deadline of 20 days for an audiência prévia.
    At the appointment on October 26, 2026, I should also limit myself to ten witnesses. I also met the court in this regard. At the same meeting, the first main hearing date was set for October 7, 2027. Another 346 days. More than four years and four months will have passed since the lawsuit was filed.
    So there was a willingness to cooperate. Unfortunately, there is no timely main hearing date.
    European case law strengthens the basis of the procedure
    While my trial was waiting, on October 24, 2024, the ECJ clarified essential questions about temporary employment in case C-441/23, Omnitel Comunicaciones and others, involving Microsoft Ibérica. The judgment precisely specifies the EU law standards on which I base my complaint.
    Among other things, the actual supervision and management in the operational company are crucial. A lack of official approval as a temporary employment agency does not exclude the protection of Directive 2008/104/EC for this reason alone. If there is temporary employment within the meaning of the directive, the remuneration during the assignment must at least correspond to what the employee would have received if they had been hired directly by the employing company.
    Together with the documents submitted and the admitted witnesses, I see this as a significantly stronger basis for enforcing my claims. The actual integration into the Google work organization must now finally be negotiated based on this evidence.
    There is also relevant case law regarding the duration of the procedure. In the judgment Ferreira da Silva e Brito and others v. Portugal of May 22, 2012, application no. 46273/09, the ECHR found a violation of Article 6 (1) ECHR due to an excessively long procedure at the Lisbon Labor Court. He specifically emphasized the special care that labor disputes require. The obligation to provide effective and timely legal protection has long been formulated.
    Support remains necessary
    I also need funds for reliable legal representation. It would be particularly important to me to be able to re-instruct the lawyer I was initially involved in as the lawyer who had already dealt with the matter. I have been driving forward the documentation and legal processing myself for years. Continuing this work and consistently using the legal options now also requires financial support.
    That's why I ask for solidarity in continuing the process and rebuilding my livelihood. Success could show that employees can disclose their actual involvement in a group to a large service provider and enforce the resulting rights. That's exactly why this case is worth pursuing.
    Donations for legal defense and livelihood security: https://www.gofundme.com/f/rechtsdefense-existenzsicherung-arbeitsgericht-lisbon
    Buying my books also helps. If you are still looking for a Christmas present, you can support me this way. Anyone who cannot contribute can help by forwarding this report and the appeal for donations.Books and Christmas presents:https://buchshop.bod.de/catalogsearch/result/?q=marc+weidner“Update from the plaintiff for LabourNet Germany – as of October 28, 2026

  • Labor court proceedings in Lisbon blocked since May 2023: Teleperformance Portugal, Google integration and the question of effective legal protection
    “In May 2023, Marc S. Weidner filed a lawsuit against Teleperformance Portugal at the Lisbon Labor Court. He is suing because, according to his account, significant claims for remuneration and differentials, bonus payments, reimbursements, bonuses, gratuities as well as claims from task and role development are outstanding. It is also about the legal classification of his work: According to the plaintiff, he was not just employed in a normal call center employment relationship, but was functionally largely integrated into the structures of Google Germany GmbH and Google LLC, while the employment law management was formally carried out by Teleperformance Portugal. This includes, among other things, a documented quiet period with a trading ban for Google shares, which typically indicates a particular proximity to company-relevant information and internal compliance structures.
    According to the plaintiff, the work carried out also went well beyond classic call center work. It included specialized tasks, quality and process responsibility as well as personnel decision-making competence. The case thus raises a more fundamental question: If even highly qualified specialists with de facto responsibility are integrated into corporate processes, but under labor law are managed via external service provider structures, how reliable is the protection against outsourced responsibility?
    The scope of the procedure also shows that it is not a petitesse. The statement of claim consists of 63 pages with 319 paragraphs. There are also 96 bundles of evidence, some with more than 30 pages per bundle, including documents from internal Google systems or internal company systems, as well as 20 named witnesses, including from Google Ireland Ltd., which coordinates the European business. This scope makes access to files, structured preparation and procedural interventions mandatory and at the same time cost-intensive.
    After an initial hearing in June 2023, according to the plaintiff, the proceedings largely came to a standstill: no taking of evidence, no decision, no effective procedural support. There is also another problem that is particularly serious for employees without their own resources: the repeatedly unstable compulsory representation. Several associate attorneys resigned or remained inactive from the plaintiff's perspective. This also turns a labor law procedure into a question of access to justice: What use is a formal legal process if it cannot be practically enforced for years?
    The case now has existential consequences. According to the plaintiff, the length of the proceedings, lack of clarification and lack of stable representation led to the loss of apartment, household and ultimately the closure of essential infrastructure. The original case documentation is therefore currently no longer available on our own website, but can be accessed via the Web Archive. A SThere is also a fundraising campaign to secure livelihoods and legal defense; it is a consequence of the situation, not its starting point.” Presentation by Marc S. Weidner of his case

See the case:

  • Lisbon labor court proceedings
    ExtensiveArchived case report by Marc Weidner externer Linklast updated on May 9, 2026  
  • Legal defense, securing livelihood: Lisbon Labor Court
    “…The lawsuit is a classic labor law dispute before the Lisbon Labor Court and is based on a documented employment relationship with Teleperformance Portugal S.A. Accordingly, it is not about special law, but rather about remuneration under the employment contract and the legal consequences of a disputed termination of the employment relationship. The subject of the dispute can be divided into three blocks:
    Remuneration and difference claims: from the actual task and role development, de facto higher grouping, hidden promotions, variable components and related billing issues.
    Legal consequences of termination: Dispute about whether and how the employment relationship was terminated and what legal payment consequences result from this until it is clarified in court.
    Damage items: material: lost earnings; intangible: personal impairment.
    The fact that so far there is little that is ready for a decision is not due to a lack of a basis for the claim, but rather because central points are fact- and evidence-driven and effectively remain in limbo without consistent scheduling and without previous evidence being taken. The value of the lawsuit is set at EUR 137,938.20…” The current multilingualFundraising campaign at GoFundMe externer Link

See also Teleperformance:

The postLabor court proceedings in Lisbon blocked since May 2023: Teleperformance Portugal, Google integration and the question of effective legal protectionappeared firstLabourNet Germany.

Originally published bylabournet.de
Read the original