Spain: Worker's Rights Trump Privileges in Dismissal Ruling
Catalonia High Court rules Prosegur dismissal unfair after tolerating 21 days of absence, ordering €34,401.91 compensation.
English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published
A security firm dismissed a guard after 21 unjustified absences in September 2020. The Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia acknowledged the faults but annulled the dismissal because the company had tolerated the situation for months without warning her.
Some dismissals fail due to what is done, others due to what is left undone. This case falls into the latter category. On October 22, 2026, the **Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña** (High Court of Justice of Catalonia) confirmed that a **Prosegur** employee missed 21 days of work without justification in September 2020. Yet it declared her dismissal unfair. The reason lies not in the absences, which the court accepts as proven, but in the fact that the company tolerated them for months without formally requiring her return or warning her of termination.
## A year-and-a-half sick leave ending in administrative limbo
The worker joined Prosegur in October 2002 as a security guard, earning **1,474.31 euros gross monthly** including prorated bonuses. In September 2018, she began temporary disability leave, lasting until March 2020. When the maximum period expired on March 7, 2020, the company deregistered her from Social Security.
The Catalan medical assessment body, **ICAM**, cleared her for duty effective March 12. Prosegur claims it did not know this until the 31st, when the worker’s lawyer communicated it and requested pending 2019 holidays and a fitness exam. According to the company, it insisted in the trinc weeks that she request reinstatement with current dates rather than retroactive ones. She never did.
## The tacit dismissal judges rejected
On May 14, the company re-registered her and scheduled a medical check-up. According to the dismissal letter, she did not attend, and her lawyer responded that the company had already broken the employment relationship: a “tacit dismissal.” The court finds it proven that she also failed to appear, without justification, for a health examination on June 2 at a clinic in Reus.
The worker sued Prosegur for this alleged tacit dismissal from spring 2020. Both the Reus court and the Catalan High Court rejected her claim and sided with the company: no such dismissal occurred. Meanwhile, the company sent her July schedules and, on August 28, a certified email with September shifts.
## 21 days in September and a letter on October 1
The court finds it proven, and the worker did not contest it, that she missed 21 days in September without justification: from the 2nd to the 10th, the 14th to the 20th, and the 23rd to the 27th. Based on this, on October 1, 2020, Prosegur dismissed her via certified email for a very serious breach involving unjustified absences.
In July 2025, the Reus court declared the dismissal unfair, giving the company the choice between rehiring her with back pay (**48.47 euros daily**) or paying compensation of **34,401.91 euros**. Prosegur appealed, and the High Court dismissed the appeal. The judges do not dispute the faults but criticize the company for letting about four months pass without formally demanding her return or warning her of dismissal. The ruling can still be appealed to the Supreme Court.
## What this teaches companies with missing employees
The doctrine emerging from this case is uncomfortable for HR departments: prolonged tolerance can turn a serious fault into an unfair dismissal. If a company knows about absences, does not sanction them, and does not set a written ultimatum, it cannot later invoke the gravity of those same absences as if nothing peine.
For the worker, the reading is the opposite and also has fine print: the court did not uphold her thesis of tacit dismissal, and the faults were established. What is annulled is the form of the dismissal, not the reality of the absences. The compensation of **34,401.91 euros** does not reward being absent; it punishes failing to warn. Put another way: labor law looks not only at what each party did, but also at what they failed to do. It is advisable to consult a labor lawyer before assuming how prolonged absences are interpreted, either way.
Some dismissals fail due to what is done, others due to what is left undone. This case falls into the latter category. On October 22, 2026, the **Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña** (High Court of Justice of Catalonia) confirmed that a **Prosegur** employee missed 21 days of work without justification in September 2020. Yet it declared her dismissal unfair. The reason lies not in the absences, which the court accepts as proven, but in the fact that the company tolerated them for months without formally requiring her return or warning her of termination.
## A year-and-a-half sick leave ending in administrative limbo
The worker joined Prosegur in October 2002 as a security guard, earning **1,474.31 euros gross monthly** including prorated bonuses. In September 2018, she began temporary disability leave, lasting until March 2020. When the maximum period expired on March 7, 2020, the company deregistered her from Social Security.
The Catalan medical assessment body, **ICAM**, cleared her for duty effective March 12. Prosegur claims it did not know this until the 31st, when the worker’s lawyer communicated it and requested pending 2019 holidays and a fitness exam. According to the company, it insisted in the trinc weeks that she request reinstatement with current dates rather than retroactive ones. She never did.
## The tacit dismissal judges rejected
On May 14, the company re-registered her and scheduled a medical check-up. According to the dismissal letter, she did not attend, and her lawyer responded that the company had already broken the employment relationship: a “tacit dismissal.” The court finds it proven that she also failed to appear, without justification, for a health examination on June 2 at a clinic in Reus.
The worker sued Prosegur for this alleged tacit dismissal from spring 2020. Both the Reus court and the Catalan High Court rejected her claim and sided with the company: no such dismissal occurred. Meanwhile, the company sent her July schedules and, on August 28, a certified email with September shifts.
## 21 days in September and a letter on October 1
The court finds it proven, and the worker did not contest it, that she missed 21 days in September without justification: from the 2nd to the 10th, the 14th to the 20th, and the 23rd to the 27th. Based on this, on October 1, 2020, Prosegur dismissed her via certified email for a very serious breach involving unjustified absences.
In July 2025, the Reus court declared the dismissal unfair, giving the company the choice between rehiring her with back pay (**48.47 euros daily**) or paying compensation of **34,401.91 euros**. Prosegur appealed, and the High Court dismissed the appeal. The judges do not dispute the faults but criticize the company for letting about four months pass without formally demanding her return or warning her of dismissal. The ruling can still be appealed to the Supreme Court.
## What this teaches companies with missing employees
The doctrine emerging from this case is uncomfortable for HR departments: prolonged tolerance can turn a serious fault into an unfair dismissal. If a company knows about absences, does not sanction them, and does not set a written ultimatum, it cannot later invoke the gravity of those same absences as if nothing peine.
For the worker, the reading is the opposite and also has fine print: the court did not uphold her thesis of tacit dismissal, and the faults were established. What is annulled is the form of the dismissal, not the reality of the absences. The compensation of **34,401.91 euros** does not reward being absent; it punishes failing to warn. Put another way: labor law looks not only at what each party did, but also at what they failed to do. It is advisable to consult a labor lawyer before assuming how prolonged absences are interpreted, either way.
Also available in: Deutsch
Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (1 replies).
More summaries
-
Feijóo plans tougher sick leave rules and wage curb in Spain
Spain's opposition leader Feijóo is preparing a tightening of sick leave rules and criticises the minimum wage. European absenteeism data do not support the urgency of the reform.
-
From 'Andalusian dog' to Spanish lord: TVE staff denounce 'authoritarian' Manu Sánchez
USO and CGT unions have reported the labor deal behind 'El perro andaluz' to Spain's Labor Inspectorate. TVE contracted the show for 7,028,942 euros through September 2026.
-
Incabel: tension between migrant workers and young Spaniards
Social media debate over 1300 euros and a shared room: the standoff between migrant workers and young Spaniards at Incabel.
-
Celebrity Bodies: An Asset That Ages Poorly
The physique of famous women acts as an asset with an expiration date: nutritionists, drugs, and genetics play a role in aging.
-
Brent Crude Plunges 7% to Three-Week Lows
Brent drops 5.31% to $113 amid futures expiry and US release of 45 million barrels from strategic reserves.
-
La Séptima launches on Spanish DTT, funding source unclear
La Séptima debuts on Spain's digital terrestrial TV this November. While production quality is solid, questions remain about who funds the channel and potential public ties.