A part-time warehouse worker in Toledo was unfairly dismissed after her multinational employer miscalculated her statutory severance payment by more than 15 percent, a regional court has ruled.
The Social Chamber of the High Court of Justice of Castilla-La Mancha confirmed the dismissal was unlawful, upholding an earlier verdict from Social Court Number One of Toledo. Under resolution 1941/2025, delivered late last year, the appellate court rejected the company's challenge and ordered it to pay full legal costs.
The decision leaves the multinational logistics company facing two mandatory alternatives under Spanish employment legislation. The business must either reinstate the female worker to her post with all wages accrued during the trial, or pay revised compensation fixed by the court at more than 8,500 euros.
The legal battle originated at a logistics facility in the province of Toledo, where the woman worked as a part-time warehouse assistant. Company management issued her with an objective dismissal notice, formally terminating her employment contract on economic or organizational grounds while delivering an erroneous compensation sum alongside the letter.
Calculation errors in objective dismissal
Under statutory labour standards in Spain, an objective dismissal requires the employer to place statutory compensation at the disposal of the worker at the exact moment the dismissal letter is handed over. The legal minimum is set at 20 days of salary per year of service.
When the worker challenged the termination, judges discovered that the corporation made two significant errors in establishing the financial settlement. The company calculated her compensation using a start date later than her actual seniority date, while also undervaluing her computable daily wage.
These miscalculations resulted in a financial discrepancy of more than 15 percent below what the employee was legally entitled to receive. The province of Toledo, situated directly south of Madrid, has become a key logistics corridor hosting major distribution hubs, where warehouse staff frequently work on part-time and shift rotas governed by strict national statutory protections.
Under the Spanish Workers' Statute, simultaneous payment is not a minor formality. It is a strict prerequisite that ensures employees facing redundancy are not left without immediate financial resources while seeking new work.
Excusable mistakes versus business negligence
The central legal question before the appellate judges was whether the company's financial miscalculation constituted an excusable arithmetic slip or an inexcusable error caused by a lack of diligence. Employers often argue that minor payroll discrepancies should simply be settled by paying the difference.
The regional high court firmly rejected that argument. The judicial resolution recalled that an error is inexcusable when the party making it could and should have eliminated it by exercising normal diligence.
Because the multinational failed to comply strictly with the formal and financial rules governing objective dismissals, established legal precedent compelled the court to classify the termination as an unfair dismissal. The judges ruled that the company showed a clear lack of care when calculating the worker's length of service and base pay.
In the Spanish judicial system, employment disputes begin at local social courts before reaching regional high courts. When a court reclassifies an objective dismissal as unfair, the employer loses the lower statutory severance rate and faces much higher financial penalties.
Reinstatement requirements and legal costs
The final confirmation of the judgment originally handed down by Social Court Number One of Toledo obliges the multinational to accept the financial fallout of its administrative error. The company cannot correct the mistake after the fact by paying the missing percentage.
Management must now decide whether to rehire the warehouse worker and provide her with back pay, known as processing salaries, for the entire period between her dismissal and the resolution of the appeal. If the company declines to reinstate her, it must pay the full court-ordered settlement exceeding 8,500 euros.
The High Court of Justice of Castilla-La Mancha also ordered the appellant company to pay all court costs incurred during the appeal. The ruling sends a clear warning to logistics and warehouse operators across central Spain that failing to exercise basic diligence when calculating severance pay will automatically void an objective dismissal.
