The worker's interpretation of the vacation request procedure in the company does not justify his absence.

The appeal No. 2761/2024, filed by Mr. Juan Pedro against the ruling of the Social Court No. 4 of León (Orders 200/24), dated September 9, 2024, in relation to his dismissal, is resolved.

Mr. Juan Pedro worked as a supervisor with a full-time indefinite contract. On December 30, 2023, the company informed him of his disciplinary dismissal with effect from the same day, alleging unjustified absences from his job on December 6, 9, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29, in accordance with article 40.1 of the VI Labor Agreement of the Hospitality sector.

The worker had his vacation scheduled from December 25, 2023 to January 7, 2024, but on December 17, his superior informed him through a WhatsApp message that said vacations were not authorized..

On January 12, 2024, after the dismissal of Mr. Juan Pedro, the head of operations informed the staff of the official procedure for requesting vacations. This consists of two phases: first the application through the company's platform and, finally, its approval after review. It was clarified that requests are not valid until they are expressly approved.

The Social Court dismissed the claim in which the declaration of inadmissibility of the dismissal was requested. Given this ruling,The worker filed an appeal, requesting its revocation for both factual and legal reasons.

Under the provisions of letter c) of article 193 of the Law Regulating Social Jurisdiction, the appellant denounces the violation of the provisions of articles 54.2 a) and 56 of the Workers' Statute, as well as article 40.1 of the Spanish Hospitality Labor Agreement.

In his appeal, the worker acknowledges that he was absent from work without justification on December 6 and 9, 2023. However, he maintains that his absence from December 25, 2023 to January 7, 2024 was justified., since he had planned his vacation on the company's management platform. He admits that on December 17, 2023, his superior informed him that said vacations had been "withdrawn", but alleges that he was not offered any alternative for his enjoyment, despite it being the last week of the year and that he still had days pending. Furthermore, he argues that he had always taken vacations during that period, although this statement is not supported by the proven facts.

He also points out that, after his dismissal, the company issued a circular indicating that everything previously planned "has no validity whatsoever" until it is approved. It interprets that this communication reflects a change in business practice and that, until that moment, the dates planned in the system generated a presumption of validity, and a reasonable expectation of enjoyment. In addition, punish with dismissal the behavior of the worker who “he took the vacation he had planned and it was abruptly revoked” It is disproportionate. He describes this action as bad faith on the part of the company, which is why he requests that the unfair dismissal be declared.

The TSJ of Castilla y León confirms that the worker's absences between December 25 and 29, 2023 were unjustified. Although he initially had vacations registered in the system, he was informed on December 17 that these were not authorized. The worker acknowledged his absence, but claimed that his absences were justified. Despite his discomfort at the company's refusal to grant him vacation, his absence from work is not justified. The Court considers that he could have claimed other dates for his vacation.

Finally, the appellant highlights the communication included in the fifth proven fact, interpreting that, before his dismissal, the vacations planned in the system were taken without the need for confirmation. However,The determining factor in this case is not whether the company modified its vacation management procedure, but rather that the worker was warned that on the dates in question he did not have authorized vacation time and, in any case, he did not show up for his job..

The TSJ of Castilla y León concludes that it is appropriate to confirm the criteria of the trial Judge and dismiss the appeal, given that the alleged factual and legal infractions have not been proven. Consequently, the lower court ruling must be confirmed in its entirety.