Spanish labour law can allow an employee to be dismissed without compensation for going on holiday while on sick leave, but only if the employer proves serious misconduct, such as conduct that undermines recovery or breaches contractual good faith. Temporary incapacity alone makes a dismissal neither lawful nor unlawful; the reason for dismissal and the evidence behind it matter. The issue is especially relevant in summer, when workers may wonder which activities are compatible with medical leave. Some disputes end without incident. Others reach court after an employer challenges an employee’s conduct.
The law sets no fixed list of activities prohibited during sick leave. Article 54 of Spain’s Workers’ Statute allows disciplinary dismissal for serious and culpable breaches, including a breach of contractual good faith or abuse of confidence. It imposes no blanket ban on travel, holidays or other activities, including sport. Employers may sanction breaches information from the scale set by law or the applicable collective agreement. The basic question is whether the conduct conflicts with the diagnosed condition, medical restrictions or recovery, and whether the employer can prove that connection.
Social courts assess each case individually. The Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunitat Valenciana has treated compatibility with the employee’s condition and recovery as basic: the journey or activity alone does not settle the matter. Judges may consider the diagnosis and medical advice, along with the activity’s intensity and duration and the strength of the evidence. So, similar activities can produce different outcomes when the medical circumstances differ.
Courts have upheld dismissals when physical exertion clearly conflicted with the illness. In one case, a worker on leave for a lumbar injury took part in strenuous exercise, including running and mountain hiking. The court found the activity incompatible with recovery. In Aragón, a worker with a knee injury who competed in padel tournaments also lost the case, and the court backed the employer’s decision. In both cases, the issue was the link between the activity and the injury, not a general ban on leaving home or taking part in recreation.
Other cases show why travel alone does not automatically amount to misconduct. An employee on leave for depression and anxiety travelled abroad for 12 days. The Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Murcia ruled that the trip did not interfere with recovery and declared the dismissal unfair. Separately, the Tribunal Supremo found that moderate padel playing can be compatible with sick leave for lumbago when a doctor recommends it. These outcomes turn on the evidence and medical context, not a universal rule for physical or mental-health leave.
A separate Murcia ruling dated 20 July 2026 shows how the quality and weight of evidence can shape the result. A detective documented a worker driving, using a mobile phone and visiting a hairdresser while on sick leave. The Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Murcia described the observations as isolated acts that lacked enough weight to prove simulated illness or harm to recovery. It also criticized a medical report for relying on probabilities beyond what the evidence supported. The court declared the dismissal unfair, leaving the employer to choose between reinstatement with back pay and compensation of €3,390.41.
Medical records and recommendations matter, though they do not decide every case on their own. Courts also assess whether an activity objectively conflicts with the condition, risks delaying recovery, or is contradicted by credible employer evidence. A single observation may carry less weight than a sustained pattern. Clear proof of strenuous activity that violates medical restrictions, but, can support disciplinary action. Dismissal motivated by a worker’s illness may raise discrimination concerns; independently proven serious misconduct can provide a separate basis for dismissal.
Proportionality matters, too. In a separate dispute, the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de La Rioja overturned the dismissal of a nurse employed by Mutua Universal Mugenat in Calahorra. The case included a clinical meeting on 31 October 2024 about whether a patient on sick leave could travel abroad. The court found that the proven conduct did not justify the maximum sanction and that no clear, precise employer order had been disobeyed. Under the applicable collective agreement, the acts could amount at most to lesser violations. Applying proportionality principles, the court declared the dismissal unfair and set compensation at €62,598.65, with procedural wages calculated at €95.57 per day.
Spain’s legal structure balances workers’ rights during temporary incapacity with employers’ ability to respond to serious, proven misconduct. Travel or taking part in an activity is not automatically grounds for dismissal. The risk rises when conduct conflicts with the illness, violates medical restrictions, obstructs recovery or supports a finding of simulation. Employers must prove the breach and choose a proportionate sanction; courts review the facts and medical evidence case by case. Workers and employers alike should pay close attention to medical advice and the practical impact of activities during a period of incapacity.
