The Asturias Supreme Court of Justice, TSJA, ordered the readmission of a worker at an ophthalmology clinic in Oviedo, ruling that his dismissal was inadmissible due to delays in punctuality over a five month period.
The Social Chamber of the TSJA dismissed the clinic’s appeal, which challenged the Social Court No. 6 Oviedo decision. The court had found the layoff to be disproportionate in light of the employee facing an extreme backlash at work.
The Asturian high court upheld the Social Court’s ruling, noting that the clinic initially tolerated the punctuality lapses and that the dismissal letter described the response as excessive, disproportionate, and unreasonable. The decision cited a lack of prior warning, absent disciplinary steps, and the absence of a clear escalation toward sanctions for carelessness.
In September 2021, the clinic had imposed a disciplinary penalty for alleged punctuality faults covering the period from March 3 to August 8, 2021.
Details indicate that the worker showed delays of up to six minutes and twenty-six seconds on morning arrivals and eight minutes and one second in the evening.
As described in the decision, the claimant had been employed at the clinic as an optician from 09:00 to 13:30 and 15:30 to 19:30 since 2012. He would put on his uniform to begin work, sign the time log upon arrival and departure, and change for the street at the end of each shift.
The ruling characterizes the dismissal as an abrupt and disconnected reaction from an otherwise tolerant and at least passive attitude. The court considers the dismissal an extreme, disproportionate, and unreasonable reaction that the worker has sustained to date.
The employee initially challenged the dismissal before the Social Court, which found the termination unfair and ordered reinstatement to the clinic.
The clinic subsequently filed an appeal with the TSJA, arguing that the pandemic context had affected punctuality expectations and that the plaintiff knew this pressure existed. The TSJA ultimately sided with the employee, reinforcing the view that penalties must align with the scale of the infringement and prior established practices, especially under exceptional circumstances like public health crises.
Attribution: TSJA decision, Oviedo, as reported in official court records. The case demonstrates how courts balance employer prerogatives with workers’ rights when punctuality disputes arise and how proportion and prior warnings influence the legality of dismissals. The ruling highlights the importance of consistent disciplinary measures and clear communication in the management of attendance problems across employment settings. The outcome underscores a cautious approach to dismissals where a long record of tolerance exists and where responses can appear disproportionate to the offense. In this instance, the court favored the employee’s reinstatement over termination, illustrating evolving standards in Spanish labor jurisprudence with real effects on workforce relations and clinic operations. The decision is cited in discussions of attendance discipline and the review practices of regional high courts. A future note from this decision is its potential alignment with broader regulatory expectations that emergency conditions may require adjustments in enforcement while maintaining fairness to workers.