The worker acted in accordance with medical recommendations and did not violate contractual good faith during his medical leave.

The appeal No. 3139/24, filed by a company in the automobile sector, against the ruling of the Social Court No. 1 of Valladolid, dated October 14, 2024 (orders 753/2024), is resolved.

The worker was fired by letter dated June 6, 2024.He was on temporary disability since 6/12/2023 (IT) due to acute low back pain since June 2023. The worker, with seniority since 2004 and a 3rd officer category, also had cervical problems.The company hired detectives to follow up for 9 days.

During this follow-up, he was documented doing some physical activities such as walking, driving, carrying backpacks (one with a ferret), washing his van with a pressure washer, or going to a walking path for 10-15 minutes. Reports from several days of monitoring, including a recording, were provided to the trial.

The company's medical service had recommended avoiding heavy lifting and forced postures. The company considered the activities it carried out on a daily basis as incompatible with its sick leave status and justified a disciplinary dismissal for violation of contractual good faith (art. 54.2.d ET).

The worker challenged the dismissal, and the Social Court No. 1 of Valladolid declared the dismissal unfair., condemning Renault to choose between reinstatement or payment of compensation of €61,632.55, with payment of processing salaries if it opted for reinstatement.

The company filed an appeal before the TSJ of Castilla y León, raising two main reasons:

• Factual review: his claim was based on a detective report, he requested to modify the ninth proven fact to delete a phrase (“sitting in a portable chair”) and add another referring to the worker's usual profession.
• Regulatory violation: affirmed an incorrect interpretation of art. 54.2.d ET, and maintained that the activities carried out by the plaintiff in an IT situation were incompatible with the alleged injury and sufficient to justify dismissal for serious contractual breach. It also cited provisions of the applicable collective agreement.

The TSJ completely rejects the company's appeal for the following reasons:

The Chamber recalls that, in accordance with the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court,The reports of private detectives, even if presented in writing, do not constitute documentary evidence suitable to modify proven facts in an appeal. They are considered improper testimonial evidence, and to have full effects they must be ratified in court by their authors.. Since this does not occur, the requested factual modification cannot prosper.

Regarding the substance of the matter,The Court analyzes whether the worker's activities during his IT are incompatible with his recovery process or if they evidenced an ability to be able to work.. However, he points out that the activities observed (walking, driving, carrying light backpacks, washing a vehicle) are not incompatible with his diagnosis or with the recommended treatment (which included exercises such as yoga, pilates, walking).

It has not been proven that such acts harm or delay recovery, nor that they represent a simulation of illness.. The actor was still undergoing medical treatment and under physiotherapy control, in which he was advised to walk, avoid prolonged postures and perform lumbar exercises. The worker acted in good faith.

The TSJ of Castilla y León applies the gradualist theory. Disciplinary dismissal for violation of good faith is only possible if the activities carried out in IT reveal fitness to work or delay healing. Since these circumstances do not exist, it ratifies the declaration of inadmissibility of the dismissal. An appeal is possible for unification of doctrine.