Calculation of the "month" for absenteeism as grounds for disciplinary dismissal - STS 6043/2025

The Supreme Court, in a judgment dated 19 December 2025, has ruled on a cassation appeal for the unification of doctrine, confirming that the disciplinary dismissal of a female worker for unjustified absences from work was admissible.

The ruling focuses on determining how the month provided for in the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement should be interpreted in order to classify absence from work of more than two days per month as a very serious offence: whether it should be a calendar month or a period of thirty days computed from date to date from the first absence.

The Madrid SCJ had considered the dismissal to be unjustified on the grounds that the month had to be a calendar month, so that the worker's absences were spread over different periods and did not exceed the limit for very serious misconduct. However, the SC, following its already consolidated doctrine, overturns this criterion and establishes that the calculation must be made from date to date, given that the purpose of the disciplinary regime would be undermined if absences very close to each other were excluded because they coincided in different calendar months, which would generate results contrary to the purpose of effectively controlling non-compliance with the obligation to attend work.

In the light of this criterion, and given that, applying it to this specific case, the employee effectively exceeded the maximum number of unjustified absences permitted, the SC considered that there was very serious misconduct, punishable by disciplinary dismissal.

Consequently, it upheld the appeal, annulled the judgment of the High Court of Justice of Madrid and upheld the decision of the Social Court, declaring the dismissal to be justified.

Article written by ECIJA Madrid Labour Law Department.