Dismissal for taking extra vacation days without permission

Workers' leaves and vacations, as well as the conditions under which they can be enjoyed, are regulated by the Workers' Statute, making it crucial to comply with the law. In this article, as dismissal lawyer experts, we will analyze what happens if extra vacation days are taken without the company's permission. 

What requirements must be met to enjoy vacations? 

To answer this question, we must analyze the regulations established in Article 38 of the Workers' Statute, which states that the period of paid annual leave, which cannot be replaced by financial compensation, shall be agreed upon in the collective bargaining agreement or in the individual contract, and under no circumstances shall its duration be less than 30 calendar days. 

The period of enjoyment is set by mutual agreement between the employer and the worker, and if no agreement is reached, the parties must turn to the labor courts, which will determine the dates to be taken. 

The vacation schedule will be established in each company, and the worker must be informed of their corresponding dates at least two months prior to the vacation start date. 

What happens if I extend my vacation without the company's permission? 

The labor chamber of the High Court of Justice of Navarra analyzed a case where a worker failed to report to their workplace for 17 days without justification and without company authorization, as they were on vacation during a period outside the one set by the employer. 

The company had established an annual schedule regulating vacations for all workers and shared this schedule with the entire staff. In the year 2025, summer vacations were scheduled from July 7 to 18 and from August 18 to 29. The plaintiff employee traveled to Ecuador from July 8 to August 11, which placed them outside the periods designated by the company, leading the company to initiate disciplinary proceedings on July 22. In this regard, it is worth noting that the company attempted to contact him without success, and the organization of work was disrupted by this worker's absence. 

The worker claimed there was an agreement with his boss regarding the vacation, but this point could not be proven. 

The company ultimately dismissed him through a disciplinary dismissal, since the applicable collective bargaining agreement considers an unjustified absence of more than 3 days in a month to be a very serious misconduct, and in this case, there was a total of 17 days of absence.

The court upheld the worker's dismissal due to the harm caused to the company and the severity of the misconduct committed. 

A similar case was reviewed by the High Court of Justice of Castilla y León in 2024. In this scenario, a worker provided services as a supervisor under a full-time permanent contract. The worker had vacations scheduled from December 25, 2023, to January 7, 2024, but on December 17, his supervisor informed him in writing that the vacation was not authorized. 

The worker was absent from work without justification on December 6 and 9, 2023, and argued that his absence from December 25, 2023, to January 7, 2024, was justified since he had planned the vacation on the company's platform. However, the vacation had not been approved by his supervisor. Consequently, the days of absence were deemed a serious misconduct, and the company proceeded with the worker's dismissal. 

Furthermore, in this case, the company had informed staff through a memo that scheduling vacations on the company's management platform was not valid until those vacations were approved. 

The High Court of Justice of Castilla y León confirmed that the worker's absences between December 25 and 29 were unjustified, and although the vacation was registered, it was not authorized. Therefore, the disciplinary dismissal was upheld as fair. 

In a similar case, the High Court of Justice of Madrid reached the same conclusion. In this instance, the worker requested a 5-month voluntary leave of absence, which the company denied. The worker claimed he could not work during that period and requested the company to consider the absence as vacation or unpaid leave. The company denied the request, but the worker failed to attend work and was dismissed via disciplinary dismissal for unjustified absences. 

The High Court of Justice established that the only options the worker had to be absent with justification were vacation, unpaid leave, and family care leave. Family care leave could not apply because the worker did not request it. Nor could it be considered a paid leave of absence, as this is granted in cases of accident, serious illness, or hospitalization, none of which occurred here. Regarding vacations, the court recalled that the period to enjoy them is set by mutual agreement between the company and the worker at least 2 months in advance of the planned date. In this case, both requirements were breached, as the worker requested the vacation and the company responded negatively. 

Vacations without permission are considered unjustified absences 

The Workers' Statute regulates the grounds for disciplinary dismissal in Article 54, meaning those cases in which the employment contract is terminated by decision of the employer based on a serious and culpable breach by the worker. 

One of the causes considered a contractual breach is repeated and unjustified absences or lack of punctuality at work. Therefore, when a worker's absence occurs without justification, such as taking vacations without obtaining the company's permission, it constitutes grounds for disciplinary dismissal. 

If your company has dismissed you and you need advice, do not hesitate to contact our team of expert dismissal lawyers to analyze your case.