The High Court of Justice of the Basque Country has upheld the dismissal of an employee on temporary sick leave for taking part in mountain biking, which was deemed incompatible with his recovery process
Judgment of the High Court of Justice of the Basque Country of 21 July 2026
(STSJ No. 1877/2026, Case No. 1654/2026).
The judgement examines the disciplinary dismissal of an employee and legal representative of the workers who was on temporary sick leave due to epicondylitis in his right elbow. Whilst on sick leave, the company became aware that he was undertaking mountain bike rides, a fact which was verified by a report from private detectives and which led to the initiation of disciplinary proceedings and his subsequent dismissal for breach of contractual good faith.
First, the Chamber examined the plea of nullity put forward by the employee, who argued that the dismissal constituted retaliation arising from his role as a trade union representative and from the claims he had brought against the company, including a request for a determination that his temporary incapacity was work-related. However, the Court concludes that there is insufficient evidence of a breach of the guarantee of indemnity or of freedom of association. In the Chamber’s view, the representative actions cited lacked a sufficiently relevant temporal and causal link with the employer’s decision; furthermore, the company had demonstrated the existence of objective grounds justifying the investigation and the subsequent disciplinary action.
Turning to the substantive analysis, the Court recalls the established case-law according to which carrying out activities whilst on temporary incapacity leave does not in itself constitute conduct warranting disciplinary action. Disciplinary relevance arises only when the activity carried out reveals a capacity for work that is incompatible with the medical sick leave or is likely to hinder, delay or frustrate the worker’s recovery process.
The judgement attaches particular importance to the facts established through the evidence provided by private investigators. On three occasions, the worker undertook mountain bike rides of approximately 45 kilometres, including the ascent of a mountain pass requiring a certain level of physical exertion. These activities took place whilst he was still undergoing rehabilitation treatment due to persistent pain and at a time when medical reports indicated a long-term period of temporary incapacity.
The report issued by the Forensic Clinic during the legal proceedings is of particular significance. This report concluded that mountain biking involves intense and continuous use of the upper limbs, characterised by prolonged gripping, vibration absorption, repeated impacts and mechanical stress on the elbow and forearm. According to the specialists, this type of activity is generally contraindicated during the active phases of epicondylitis, precisely because of the risk of aggravating the symptoms and delaying functional recovery.
On the basis of these medical conclusions, the Chamber rejects the worker’s argument regarding the absence of an express medical prohibition on cycling. The Court considers that doctors cannot be required to draw up an exhaustive list of prohibited activities; it is sufficient to ascertain whether the conduct in question is objectively incompatible with the limitations arising from the diagnosed condition and with the general guidelines for recovery.
Consequently, the High Court of Justice concludes that the repeated practice of mountain biking during a painful and active phase of the injury constituted conduct likely to jeopardise the worker’s recovery and, therefore, a serious breach of the duties of good faith under the contract. On this basis, it fully upholds the validity of the disciplinary dismissal and reinforces the legal principle that activities carried out during a period of temporary incapacity may justify the maximum penalty where they are incompatible with the healing process or demonstrate conduct contrary to the duties of loyalty required in the employment relationship.