The Social Chamber of the Supreme Court has declared the finality of the ruling of the Social Court No. 1 of Palencia in which the dismissal of a worker who was given a dismissal letter that did not specify the dates and times in which the events that motivated the sanction were committed was declared inadmissible.

Article 55 of the Workers' Statute is what determines the form and effects of disciplinary dismissal. Point 1 states, “The dismissal must be notified in writing to the worker, stating the facts that motivate it and the date on which it will take effect.”

In this ruling, the worker is not satisfied with the company's decision and that she was dismissed in a disciplinary manner. The worker alleged that the dismissal letter did not meet the formal requirements demanded by the aforementioned article 55.1 of the ET.

The Social Court No. 1 of Palencia handed down a ruling in favor of the worker, appreciating that the dismissal letter did not meet the formal requirements as the alleged facts were incorrect.

The company appealed before the Social Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Castilla y León, and it confirmed the previous ruling. Specifically, the aforementioned document detailed a dozen statements from different employees of the same company in which the worker provided services and which warned of alleged incorrect treatment by the latter. However, the aforementioned workers who reported such a situation were not identified, nor were they identified in the previous disciplinary file.

The defendant company filed an appeal for unification of doctrine and the Supreme Court declared it inadmissible.

Failed: The Superior Court of Justice of Castilla y León rules that the dismissal letter contained generic accusations in reference to the attitude of the dismissed worker and declares the disciplinary dismissal inadmissible, confirming the lower court ruling.