Judgment No. 196/2025, dated June 19, issued by the Labor Court of Ponferrada, has declared that a dismissal agreement between the employer and the employee, aimed at allowing the latter to unlawfully access unemployment benefits, constitutes fraud against the social protection system.
The ruling is final and cannot be appealed.
What happened?
The employee had been working for the company for fifteen years.
On May 29, 2023, one and a half months after returning from medical leave following the denial of permanent disability, the company proceeded with a disciplinary dismissal, issuing a generic letter citing unjustified absences, significantly lower performance compared to colleagues, and breach of contractual good faith.
Following the dismissal, the employee, aged 62, was able to access unemployment benefits.
On October 16, 2023, the Labor Inspectorate initiated a sanctioning procedure against the company for simulating, in collusion with the employee, a termination of the employment relationship through disciplinary dismissal so that the employee could access unemployment benefits. After the respective allegations, the company filed a claim before the Labor Court requesting the annulment of the infringement report, arguing that it was based on mere assumptions.
What led the judge to consider this a fraudulent dismissal?
Several factors led the judge to conclude that this was a fraudulent dismissal, and the company failed to provide any evidence to refute the facts:
- The employee’s long tenure: she had worked at the company for at least 15 years.
- The reasons stated in the dismissal letter were generic. Of the three reasons cited (unjustified absences, low performance, and breach of good faith), none were sufficiently substantiated to justify a genuine disciplinary dismissal.
- The employee did not challenge the dismissal.
Given her tenure and the generic nature of the dismissal letter, there was a high likelihood that the dismissal would have been declared unfair had she gone to court. Moreover, the severance pay would have been substantial due to her seniority. - The employee’s age: she was 62 at the time of dismissal, close to retirement.
These factors led the judge to determine that the dismissal bore all the characteristics of a mutual agreement between the company and the employee.
What were the consequences for the company?
This fraudulent disciplinary dismissal constituted a very serious offense under Article 23.1(c) of LISOS (Law on Infractions and Sanctions in the Social Order), graded according to Articles 39 and 40 of LISOS, resulting in a proposed fine of €7,501.
It should be noted that although the Inspectorate applied the minimum penalty in this case, fines for serious offenses may range as follows:
- €7,501 to €30,000 (minimum level)
- €30,001 to €120,005 (medium level)
- €120,006 to €225,018 (maximum level)
Furthermore, agreeing to a termination with the aim of fraudulently receiving social security benefits may constitute a criminal offense under Article 307 of the Penal Code. In such cases, penalties may include:
- Imprisonment from 6 to 36 months
- Financial fine based on the amount defrauded
- Loss of entitlement to subsidies, tax incentives, and social security benefits for a period of 3 to 6 years
What were the consequences for the employee?
The employee lost the right to unemployment benefits as of May 30, 2023, and is required to repay the amounts unduly received.
The judgment reiterates that in order to access unemployment benefits, the dismissal must be involuntary to qualify as a legal situation of unemployment.
