The Court considers that the company acted diligently.

Appeal No. 180/2024 is resolved on the ruling of the Social Court No. 36 of Madrid (records No. 539/2023), matter of dismissal and claim for amount.

Mr. Adolfo, had been providing services for the defendant company as a driver since March 11, 2023. The company notified him of his dismissal effective March 27, 2023, alleging unjustified absences.

The company notified the dismissal on several occasions, through a digital platform, but Mr. Adolfo was not aware of it.

In instance, the dismissal was declared unfair, condemning the company to opt for reinstatement with the payment of the wages lost or the payment of compensation.

The company filed an appeal alleging several reasons. Firstly, he requested the modification of the proven facts to include a new ordinal indicating that the company sent a notification on March 23 requiring justification of his absences through the same platform used to communicate the dismissal. He also requested to modify the wording regarding the delivery of the dismissal letter by adding a new fact that would reflect the multiple electronic notifications made. And finally, he argued that the platform used to notify the dismissal complied with the requirements of the European Regulation and the Workers' Statute, and that it was not necessary for the presence of any person to certify the veracity of the delivery of said communications.

The TSJ of Madrid remembering articles 53.1 and 55.1 of the ET and applying doctrine of the Supreme Court of 1982 (with rulings of November 24 and 25),considered that dismissal communications whose notification is refused by the recipient are fully valid. This doctrine, also included in the Superior Courts of Justice, establishes that the worker's refusal to receive the dismissal letter exempts the company from making other notification attempts.

D. Adolfo argued that it had not received the notifications, but it was proven that the company had sent the dismissal communication through a digital platform on up to 16 occasions, and that the application had correctly recorded the receipt.

The Court concluded that greater diligence could not be required from the company, since the employee had not gone to pick up the dismissal letter at the indicated address. Furthermore, he added that, according to jurisprudence and doctrine, the refusal to receive the dismissal letter (whether due to unknown whereabouts or failure to acknowledge receipt) meant an express rejection of the communication and exempted the company from any liability.

The Court upheld the appeal and revoked the ruling of the lower court, issued on October 2, 2023, declaring the dismissal of Mr. Adolfo appropriate.