She moved in with her mother, who had had a stroke. Mail began to pile up and important notices were there.
The name of the worker is not disclosed, nor is the name of the company. It is known that it is in Spain, in Asturias.
The employee in question was sick leave, due to depression, in November 2024.
On December 11th, the Public Health Service issued a sick leave confirmation, scheduling a follow-up appointment for December 23rd.
He went to the consultation. He was discharged by the mutual insurance company – but he did not return to work.
There, the company called him. He couldn’t speak.
A week later, on December 30, registered letter: the company informs the employee that a preliminary hearing process had been opened for unjustified absences.
In the same letter, the warning: the process could end in dismissal.
The employee reported two news: broken cell phone and moving house – temporarily moved to her mother’s house to take care of her (her mother had suffered a stroke).
And because of that, and due to lack of time, he stopped checking what was in the mail. THE correspondence about discharge notification “accumulated”, quote or
A company was not convinced; the worker had not justified his absence of 28 consecutive days.
Dismissal for just cause.
The worker appealed, the Social Court nº 5 of Oviedo rejected his complaint, declaring legal dismissal.
The worker appealed againthis time at the Superior Court of Justice of Asturias. He remembered that he had confirmed his sick leave since December 11th. And, he claimed, he acted under the “reasonable belief” that he was still on sick leave. I thought I was still bearish.
He said that I didn’t know about the dismissal; not even high. So I didn’t even know it was missing.
The court rejected these allegations – because the employee admitted that the resignation letter arrived at his home.
The worker also claimed that his absences were not “culpable” (intentional), since he acted believing that the report and the certificate from the Public Health Service were valid and justified his absence – and because he did not see the notification in time.
The Superior Court of Justice of Asturias was also not convinced: it could not be argued that there was a lack of notification (once again, the worker acknowledged that the letter arrived at the address – It was his own negligence that caused the correspondence to pile up).
Furthermore, the certificate was valid… until the consultation on December 23rd. That day, he went to the appointment. Did you know that was discharged from that date.
Therefore, from that moment on, I knew I was supposed to go back to work – but I didn’tnor contacted the company.
And, even after the company’s registered letter, on December 31, and even though he was warned that he could be fired, he did not try to return to work, nor did he express any intention of doing so.
Conclusion: the court rejected your appeal and upheld the dismissal.
