Employment lawyers of Carlos Baño Leon Spanish Lawyers got a positive judgment from the Supreme Court, social section, in the appeal number 2385/2014 dated on 10/05/2014 filed by a worker who had been dismissed by his company, a hotel chain of Elche, Alicante.

As a consequence of the dismissal, the worker filed the case in the social Court of Elche, which admitted that the company was right, an important hotel chain of the province of Alicante. He appealed to the High Court of Justice of the Valencian Community, which also said that the company was right. Consequently, against these judgments, he went to the Supreme Court claiming that the appealed judgment of the High Court of Justice of the Valencian Community infringed and contradicted other judgments of other high courts of justice, since they established that the worker was right in identical cases and the Supreme Court had confirmed such judgments too.

Once the worker explained his arguments, the Supreme Court also studied the arguments of Carlos Baño Leon Spanish Lawyers and of the Public Prosecutor, who by the way said that the worker was right. The judgment notified on 09/06/2016 says again that our lawyer office is right.

The issue was focused on whether a mistake in the letter of dismissal was a formal mistake for its annulment or not, since the date on the letter was of the previous day of the dismissal.

Lawful Dismissal

The Supreme Court states that it was not a formal mistake because the position of the company was clear: when the letter of dismissal was delivered, the worker had to leave the premises such day during the working hours and the company cancelled his contract. Although the date in the letter was not correct, its text indicated that he was dismissed when the letter was delivered.

Indeed, for the courtroom of the High Court of Justice of the Valencian Community the dismissal effects coincide with the moment of delivery of the letter, the day after its date, since it is stated the imposition of a disciplinary sanction without reference to a later moment.

What happened was a mistake when dating the dismissal letter, which was dated on 21st October 2012 instead of 22nd of October, which is the day when the letter was delivered, without postponing its effect as the content of the letter proves with sentences such as ‘this company has taken the decision of disciplinary sanctioning you because of a very grave misconduct…’; ‘it has decided to impose a penalty of disciplinary dismissal which can only be challenged through a legal proceeding’. This shows that the company was not just informing about its intention, but about the firm decision of sanctioning him with his dismissal, as it is proved by the fact that since 22nd October he has not served for the company and this also proves that the worker did not have doubts of the dismissal effect.

× ¿Ayuda?
Scroll to top