The Supreme Court of Spain clarifies dismissal on the grounds of absenteeism: how are the time limits for unjustified absences calculated?
The management and monitoring of unjustified absences is one of the constant challenges faced by Human Resources departments. Until now, there has been legal uncertainty as to how to calculate the periods of “one month” or “three months” typically established in collective agreements for proceeding with disciplinary dismissal on the grounds of absence or dismissal for absenteeism.
A recent judgment of 19 December 2025 by the Supreme Court of Spain has shed light on this issue, providing companies with the reassurance of knowing exactly where they stand when managing staff absences.
The end of uncertainty in the calculation of time limits for dismissal on the grounds of absenteeism
The main question has always been whether the period of “one month” should be understood as a calendar month or as a period of 30 consecutive days.
The higher court has determined that the calculation must be carried out from date to date. This means that the reference period begins to run from the date of the first unjustified absence, regardless of whether it occurs halfway through a calendar month and the next at the beginning of the following month.
Unification of the Supreme Court of Spain’s approach to workplace absenteeism
This is not an arbitrary decision, but a necessary unification of criteria. The Supreme Court of Spain has decided that disciplinary absences should be measured in the same way as historical absenteeism.
Why? First, for the sake of effectiveness: for the system to function, we cannot allow calendar periods to become a refuge for avoiding responsibility.
And secondly, for the sake of legal coherence: a month must be understood as a continuous period of time. In this way, it ensures that the rules of the game are the same for everyone and that the employer’s response is proportionate to the misconduct committed. This criterion is particularly relevant in dismissal procedures for absenteeism, where the calculation of absences may be decisive for the validity of the disciplinary sanction.
The scope of the “pro operario” principle in cases of dismissal for absenteeism
The Supreme Court of Spain has corrected the approach taken by other courts which favoured the calendar month on the basis that reasonable doubt in law should operate in favour of the employee.
The judgment clarifies that this principle should only be applied where there is no other way of interpreting the law. In this case, the logic prevails that conduct amounting to neglect of work cannot go unpunished on the basis of a purely chronological issue.
The importance of digital evidence in disputes concerning workplace absences
It is of little use for the Supreme Court of Spain to clarify the calculation of time limits if it cannot be demonstrated that the employee was not where they were required to be at any given time.
It is not enough merely to have a record. If the time-tracking system leaves room for doubt or allows edits that cannot be traced, the employer’s defence is weakened.
In legal proceedings, the reliability of the evidence is paramount. Without it, a chronologically sound decision could be overturned simply because the facts could not be demonstrated transparently.
Dismissal for absenteeism: what companies should do now
For this judgment to be a useful tool in managing cases of dismissal for absenteeism, rather than merely a matter of legal theory, we recommend the following immediate actions:
- The first step should be to review Human Resources protocols to ensure that company policies no longer refer to “calendar months”, adapting them to the new criterion established by the Supreme Court of Spain.
- Likewise, it is essential to ensure that time-recording software complies with judicial criteria and Labour Inspectorate requirements in order to guarantee its evidential validity.
- Finally, it should not be overlooked that repeated absenteeism may lead to a more serious issue. For this reason, we recommend assessing whether such absences conceal occupational risks or personal circumstances that ought to be addressed before the situation escalates into a disciplinary or contentious dispute.
Do you need advice? Access our area related to dismissal for absenteeism:
