There are mistakes that can be corrected with a simple apology. And then there are errors that, once committedhave legal consequences that no apology can undo. A freight transport company in Huesca discovered this in the worst possible way when it fired one of its employees, regretted it days later, trying to back down, and then fired him again. All of this while the worker was at home on medical leave. What seemed like an internal bureaucratic mess ended up in court and with compensation of more than 46,000 euros. The dismissal letters the devil carries them. Two layoffs, one leave and fifteen days of chaos. As documented in the sentence In the case that reached the Superior Court of Justice of Aragon, the worker had been in the company since 2011, with an indefinite contract, and had accumulated more than a year of medical leave due to a cervical injury when, on December 14, 2023, he received a burofax from his company informing him of the disciplinary dismissal. As indicated in the dismissal letter, the employee had carried out incompatible activities with his low status. The worker did not take long to react and began the process to challenge the dismissal in court. But then something unexpected happened. On December 20, just six days later, a second burofax arrived in which the company declared that the first dismissal was annulled and that an internal disciplinary file was opened in its place. Not satisfied with this, on December 29 they received a third burofax containing another dismissal letter, this time accompanied by the payroll and the corresponding settlement. Within two weeks, the employee had received two dismissal communications and one cancellation while was still convalescing at home. Why the company wanted to back down. As stated in the ruling, the company argued that the first dismissal had been a procedural error and considered that the initial letter had formal defects related to the applicable collective agreement, since the worker had questioned by email whether the merchandise transportation agreement or the chemical industry agreement should apply. The company’s intention was to annul that first dismissal, open the correct disciplinary file and issue a new letter in order. From his point of view, the only real dismissal was that of December 29, which had never been challenged by the worker. The company also tried to demonstrate to the court that the underlying reason for the dismissal was legitimate: a private detective report recorded the worker carrying out physical activity during his medical leave, which he interpreted as a simulation of the disability or, at least, as a behavior incompatible with recovery. A dismissal letter is not a draft. The problem for the company is that the dismissal letter is not a simple administrative communication with the employee, but is a document with key legal value with which an entire dismissal process begins with very well-defined deadlines and procedures to give maximum guarantees to both companies and employees. He article 55.1 of the Workers’ Statute establishes that disciplinary dismissal must be notified in writing, with the facts that motivate it and the effective date. Once that letter is delivered, a legal mechanism is put in place that neither party can stop unilaterally. The law itself contemplates the possibility for the company to retract the dismissal and provides a way out when a company wants to correct a poorly formulated dismissal, but as stated in article 55.2 of the Workers’ Statute, it is subject to very precise conditions and deadlines. Furthermore, it is only admitted if, during that rectification period, the company keeps the worker registered with Social Security and pays them all salaries. In this case, the ruling states that it was not proven that the company had complied with that requirement, which blocked this means of rectification. Without the worker’s acceptance, there is no turning back. On the other hand, and beyond the administrative procedures, there is an additional requirement that the company did not comply with in its process of rectification of the first dismissal: for the employment relationship to be restored, the worker who has been dismissed must expressly accept it. It is not enough for the company to declare on its own that the dismissal is without effect. The Supreme Court already established that a communicated dismissal determines that the worker is not obliged to accept any subsequent retraction from the company, and that claiming before the courts in that situation does not constitute any type of abuse. In this case, the employee did not explicitly accept the annulment of the first dismissal or return to his position. The email he sent to the company questioning the applicable collective agreement was not considered by the court as a tacit acceptance of the withdrawal, but rather as confirmation of his dismissal status. The employment relationship, in the eyes of the law, had been terminated on December 14 and no subsequent communication from the company could change that unilaterally. The outcome: more than 46,000 euros in compensation. The TSJ of Aragón also ruled out the argument about physical activity during sick leave. It was proven that the outputs recorded by detective They were walks or runs of about 40 minutes of moderate duration that, according to the medical assessment, were not contraindicated for the worker’s recovery from the cervical injury. With all these arguments on the table, the court declared the dismissal inadmissible, the first, because the second no longer had any legal value, and established compensation of 46,665.34 euros, calculated based on age of the worker. The company appealed that decision to the Superior Court of Justice of Aragon, which confirmed it in its entirety and also ordered it to pay 800 euros in costs. Dismissal letters, especially if they are not well formulated, are carried by the devil. In Xataka | He had been in the same notary office for 16 years and was fired for not passing the trial period: the Supreme Court ended up seeing the … Read more
