A Spanish court has ruled that text messages do not replace formal disciplinary hearings.
The Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia confirmed the dismissal of a restaurant server was unjustified because the company failed to provide a proper pre-termination defense window, according to reconstructions published by NoticiasTrabajo and Empleojob. The business faced a choice between reinstating the worker alongside back pay or paying 5,861.33 euros in compensation.
The legal dispute traces back to May 20, 2025, when the disciplinary firing was officially notified. The worker contested the decision in court, securing a favorable ruling in the first instance before the employer appealed.
Management accused the worker of refusing a 40-guest reservation, unauthorized access to a private employer folder containing work schedules, and unexcused absences.
The company argued that it had given the server ample opportunity to explain himself via messaging apps and during an in-person meeting. However, the WhatsApp exchange failed to capture the full scope of infractions later cited in the official termination letter. Investigators found that the chat logs did not demonstrate that the worker had a fair chance to defend against every specific grievance used to justify the firing.
The alleged in-person meeting could not be verified. The employee denied the encounter ever took place, and witness testimony failed to substantiate the employer’s claims.
The ruling clarifies that instant messaging is not inherently banned in disciplinary processes. Instead, the legal threshold depends on whether digital communication genuinely informs the employee of specific accusations and allows for an effective response before any final employment decision is made.
This judicial stance aligns with Supreme Court ruling 1250/2024, issued on November 18, which established the direct application of Article 7 of ILO Convention 158. This convention mandates that workers facing dismissal for conduct or performance must be given a real opportunity to defend themselves beforehand, unless such a requirement is entirely unreasonable for the employer.
Receiving a termination letter after a decision has already been finalized does not fulfill this protective legal function. The judiciary maintains that while an employer is not obligated to accept a worker’s excuses, establishing a verifiable opportunity for dialogue remains compulsory.
Routine daily discussions concerning missed shifts or minor guideline violations do not equate to a formal pre-termination hearing. Evaluating procedural validity requires examining the precise content of the communication, the timestamp of the messages, and the genuine capacity for the employee to respond.
