The Superior Court of Justice of Castilla-La Mancha has confirmed the inadmissibility of the dismissal of a worker who was on medical leave due to low back pain and who was caught helping his father-in-law in a job at his house.

The worker had been providing his services in the defendant company since 2004 in the professional category of laborer.

The defendant company hired a detective and verified that the worker was helping his father-in-law with tasks related to the work.that was taking place in his house: purchasing material, moving it, loading it, placing machinery, electrical installation, using tools, etc.  

The company proceeded to disciplinaryly dismiss the worker, charging him with committing an offense that breaches contractual good faith and abuse of trust, as established in article 54 of the Workers' Statute. The cause for dismissal was based on the argument that he had carried out activities incompatible with his condition of temporary disability, which could have involved simulation of his situation or conduct that jeopardized his recovery.

The court understands that the activity does not reveal, "in a palpable way, the disturbance of his normal healing, putting it in danger, even though he was in the final process of that healing, and practically recovered from his lumbar pathology. Therefore, there is no evidence of the concurrence of the breach of contractual good faith on which the cause of dismissal was based." - And he adds - “good faith will be deemed violated when the performance of these other activities is contrary to the recovery of health.”

The magistrates argued that his recovery was close to complete and that the events in question were not serious enough to justify his dismissal. According to the ruling, "His medical situation was practically resolved, and his physical therapist had recommended that he could begin working gradually."

The ruling highlights that previous jurisprudence on this matter establishes that not every activity carried out by an employee during medical leave justifies dismissal, and that each case must be analyzed individually. Furthermore, the activity in question did not clearly demonstrate that it interrupted his recovery process.

Failed: They reject the Appeal filed by the company against the lower court ruling, declaring the dismissal to be inadmissible.