The TS has issued a ruling in which it unifies the doctrine regarding this common practice in companies, considering that both events are simultaneous and therefore the provisions of the Workers' Statute are complied with.
The payment by transfer of compensation for objective dismissal complies with the simultaneity established by the Workers' Statute, as just determined by the Supreme Court, thus unifying the doctrine around this very widespread practice, which, however, had caused discrepancy since the The worker does not receive the money on the same day of dismissal, as it is not paid into the account at that time but a few days later.
The TS has just ruled that the legal provisions are effectively complied with, revoking the declaration of inadmissibility of the dismissal made by the TSJ which understood that said requirement was not met (TS ruling of November 28, 2018, in unification of doctrine).
In the case that gives rise to the ruling, the appeal is raised for the unification of doctrine and to determine whether the provision of compensation for objective dismissal made by bank transfer on the same day as the effective date is appropriate and correct. of the dismissal that coincides with the delivery of the extinguishing communication.
A company, through a letter dated October 20, 2014, informed a worker of the termination of her contract for objective reasons with an effective date of October 20, 2014 (objective dismissal due to absenteeism).
The dismissal letter establishes compensation of 20 days' salary per year of service, in the amount of 60,017.36 euros, establishing that the transfer will be made at that time.
The facts that justify the dismissal (absenteeism) are not in doubt, but whether or not the requirement of simultaneity in the provision of compensation corresponding to the objective dismissal is met.
In the first instance, the Labor Court declared the dismissal justified. However, the TSJ of Madrid declared its inadmissibility due to non-compliance with the formal requirement of simultaneous provision of compensation. Specifically, the TSJ understood that the effects of the transfer could not take place on that same day of communication of the dismissal, that is, the payment or provision of the compensation by the worker could not in any way take place on the date of dismissal, so the inadmissibility had to be declared.
The TS ruling
Finally, the TS agrees with the company and unifies doctrine around the payment by transfer of the compensation corresponding to the objective dismissal.
Firstly, the TS recalls that the question relating to the relevance of the bank transfer as a method of delivery of compensation in objective dismissals and the scope of simultaneity when the bank order has been made on the same day as the delivery of the dismissal letter has already been examined by this Chamber in various rulings.
In the TS Ruling of December 5, 2011, the Supreme Court recalls, “we rectified our traditional doctrine to accept the transfer as a suitable means of payment for offering full guarantees for the worker.”
Furthermore, the Supreme Court recalls, in several rulings we have maintained that when said transfer is made on the same day as the delivery of the extinguishing letter, the requirement of simultaneity provided for in the aforementioned legal provision must be understood to have been fulfilled, even in the event that the transfer was not credited to the worker's account that same day but the following day (SSTS of December 5, 2011, -rcud. 1667/11-; of December 17, 2014, -rcud 2475/13 -; of March 2015 - rcud 1145/14 -; and October 5, 2016 - rcud 1951/15 -).
And in this specific case, the Supreme Court concludes, the company made the transfer in favor of the worker on the same day of delivery and effective date of the dismissal letter, with which - in accordance with the resolution of our jurisprudence, The requirement of simultaneity was met.
English 
Spanish