In recent months, disciplinary dismissal in Spain has undergone a significant development in case law. Traditionally, its formal requirements were governed by Article 55 of the Workers’ Statute: the employer had to provide a letter identifying the grounds and effective date. Enhanced protection, including prior adversarial proceedings, applied to employee representatives and trade union delegates. Collective agreements could also require a procedure allowing the employee to be heard before a decision. This domestic framework stood alongside Article 7 of ILO Convention 158, ratified by Spain in 1985, which requires an opportunity for the worker to defend themselves against allegations before their employment is terminated. The Supreme Court’s Social Chamber moved to bring the two frameworks together.
The first milestone was the plenary judgment of 18 November 2024, STS 1250/2024. The Court held that Article 7 of the Convention was sufficiently precise to be directly applicable in Spanish law without further implementing legislation. A prior opportunity to be heard was therefore required for disciplinary dismissals notified after publication of that judgment. For earlier dismissals, the Court relied on the exception in the Convention itself, rather than describing its approach as a change to the rules governing the retrospective effect of case law. This was intended to avoid extending the new approach to dismissals occurring when the hearing requirement had not been considered applicable.
The decision explained that the hearing serves a principle of fairness, allowing employees to put their account directly to the person exercising disciplinary authority. Omitting it affects the right of defence. The plenary Court nevertheless recognised an objective exception: where an employer cannot reasonably be expected to provide the opportunity, for example because of practical impossibility, demonstrated urgency or unsuccessful attempts to make contact. The judgment expressed this qualification in general terms, without defining its precise boundaries.
The original article then discusses the decision it identifies as STS 1001/2025 of 5 March 2025. It describes a case in which the employer unsuccessfully attempted to contact the employee by telephone and WhatsApp before sending the dismissal letter. According to the article, the Court applied the reasonable-expectation exception and held that, in those circumstances, the absence of a hearing did not make the dismissal unfair or automatically generate compensation under Article 1101 of the Civil Code. The article’s analysis is that the duty to hear the employee must be assessed in light of the facts: where the employer proves that an opportunity was offered but could not take place for reasons beyond its control, omission of the hearing does not itself make the dismissal unfair.
This combination of a general requirement and a limited exception has practical implications. The article explains that an employee may challenge a dismissal where no opportunity to be heard was provided and the employer cannot objectively justify that omission. It recommends that employers incorporate a documented hearing stage in disciplinary procedures, keeping reliable evidence of the allegations communicated and any unsuccessful attempts to make contact.
From a doctrinal perspective, the article relates these decisions to review for compatibility with international treaties under Article 96(1) of the Spanish Constitution. Ratified treaties form part of domestic law and, where a domestic rule conflicts with ILO Convention 158, the treaty provisions take precedence. On this analysis, applying Article 7 alongside Article 55 of the Workers’ Statute supplements the domestic formalities with a prior hearing requirement.
The original article concludes that disciplinary dismissals notified from 18 November 2024 must be preceded by an opportunity to be heard, subject to the employer establishing that it was objectively impossible to provide one. It considers omission to lead to unfair dismissal where the exception does not apply, while justified impossibility may allow the dismissal to stand, without ruling out a claim for damages under Article 1101 of the Civil Code. This is the analysis published at the date shown above; the cited decisions and legal position should be checked before applying it to a current matter.