A Catalan court has ruled that firing a veteran employee for not clocking in over seven days was excessive, awarding him €42,671 in compensation. The decision highlights the importance of proportionality and due process in workplace discipline.
When a Barcelona-area painter returned to work after more than a year on medical leave and vacation, he likely did not expect his job to end so abruptly. Yet just days after his return, his employer dismissed him for failing to use the company’s time-tracking system for a week—a move the courts have now ruled was unjustified.
The Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña (TSJ) ruled on May 14, 2026, that the dismissal was unfair, ordering the company to either reinstate the worker or pay him €42,671.66 in compensation. The case, registered as STSJ CAT 3824/2026, centered on whether the company’s response matched the seriousness of the infraction.
Seven Days Without Clocking In
The employee, who had held a permanent contract as a first-class painter since 2001 and earned a gross monthly salary of €1,802.68, returned to work on May 6, 2024, after a lengthy period of temporary incapacity and subsequent vacation. From his first day back until May 13, he attended work but did not use the time registration system. On May 14, he only recorded his departure. The company argued this was a deliberate breach of duty and dismissed him for disciplinary reasons.
Initially, the Social Court No. 2 of Mataró sided with the employer, recognizing only €739.98 in unpaid wages for May. The worker appealed, claiming the punishment was disproportionate and that he had not received any formal warnings about his conduct.
Court Finds Dismissal Disproportionate
The TSJ acknowledged that failing to clock in for seven consecutive days was a serious matter and not a simple oversight. However, the court found no evidence that the company had issued prior warnings or followed a progressive disciplinary process. Applying the principle of proportionality, the judges concluded that immediate dismissal was excessive in the absence of documented prior notice or sanctions.
The ruling obliges the company to choose between reinstating the employee or paying the full compensation, in addition to the outstanding salary. The calculation of the indemnity took into account the worker’s long tenure, with the law stipulating 45 days’ pay per year of service before February 12, 2012, and 33 days per year thereafter, subject to statutory limits.
Legal Context and Broader Implications
Spanish law requires companies to maintain daily records of employees’ working hours, as set out in Article 34.9 of the Workers’ Statute. Failure to comply can be grounds for disciplinary action, including dismissal, but only if the response is proportionate and due process is observed. The TSJ’s decision does not mean workers can ignore time-tracking rules without risk; rather, it underscores that the most severe penalty must be justified by prior warnings and clear evidence of willful misconduct.
The court also rejected claims that the dismissal was discriminatory due to the worker’s prior medical leave, finding that the company’s stated reason was disciplinary, albeit insufficiently substantiated for such a harsh outcome.
This case echoes broader debates about fairness in Spanish employment law, especially for those returning from illness or extended absence. For workers with shorter employment histories, recent changes have made it easier to access unemployment support, as detailed in this analysis of new subsidy rules for short-term workers.
Ultimately, the TSJ’s ruling reinforces that while companies can sanction serious breaches, they must do so with documented warnings and a sense of proportionality—especially when a worker’s career and livelihood are at stake.
