Judge overturns dismissal because time clock always showed 8:00

An employee misses work to euthanize her sick dog. The company fires her for accumulating absences. The judge declares the dismissal unfair. The reason? The company’s work schedule records were so fictitious they were worthless as evidence.

This ruling from Barcelona’s Social Court No. 25 is a clear reminder: time tracking that doesn’t reflect reality is worthless when you need it.

What exactly happened

Majorel —a multinational contact center company that manages, among other things, TikTok content moderation— fired an employee at the end of 2024 for accumulating four absences in two months.

The last absence was because she received an urgent call from the veterinary clinic: her dog was terminally ill and they recommended she come for euthanasia.

The company applied disciplinary dismissal, claiming the four absences justified termination.

Work schedule records: the piece that changed everything

To justify the dismissal, Majorel needed to prove the employee had been absent on four separate occasions. But here’s where everything fell apart: the company’s time tracking system always recorded the exact same hours.

The judge was unequivocal:

“Carece de la virtualidad probatoria pretendida en la medida que resulta harto difícil considerarlo como un sistema fiable de fichajes, y ello porque todas las entradas y salidas son, exactamente a la misma hora (8:00 y 16:00 respectivamente), lo que resulta prácticamente imposible que siempre se fiche ‘en punto’, tanto a la hora de entrada como de salida.”

Translation: “It lacks the intended probative value insofar as it is very difficult to consider it as a reliable time tracking system, because all entries and exits are at exactly the same time (8:00 and 16:00 respectively), which makes it practically impossible for someone to always clock ‘on the dot,’ both at entry and exit times.”

In one of the absences, the employee acknowledged arriving late… but ended up showing up and working. Without reliable time tracking, the judge couldn’t determine how late she was:

“Podía ser de 10 minutos, 1 hora o 2 horas. […] Sin prueba, no cabe obtener una conclusión negativa en perjuicio del trabajador.”

Translation: “It could have been 10 minutes, 1 hour or 2 hours. […] Without proof, no negative conclusion can be drawn to the detriment of the worker.”

Result: that absence wasn’t counted. Without it, the company didn’t have enough absences to justify disciplinary dismissal.

The pet absence: justified

Regarding the absence for the veterinary emergency, the judge applied Law 7/2023 on animal welfare and a criterion of proportionality:

“No puede concebirse como una ausencia por capricho de la trabajadora, sino que la misma descansa en razones sobrevenidas, imprevisibles, humanitarias y éticas, pues resultaría inmoral que el animal hubiera tenido que prolongar la agonía hasta que la trabajadora terminase su jornada.”

Translation: “It cannot be conceived as an absence due to the worker’s whim, but rather it rests on supervening, unforeseeable, humanitarian and ethical reasons, as it would be immoral for the animal to have had to prolong its agony until the worker finished her workday.”

This is one of the first rulings in Spain that endorses a work absence for a pet emergency, based on the legal obligations imposed by animal welfare law.

The bill: €4,116.42

Unfair dismissal. Majorel had to pay €4,116.42 in compensation.

An amount that could have been avoided with a time tracking system that recorded actual entry and exit times.

What companies can learn from this case

1. “On the dot” time tracking isn’t time tracking

If your system always shows 8:00 and 16:00 (or any round hour), a judge will be suspicious. And rightly so: nobody always arrives at the exact minute. Such a record suggests data is filled in after the fact or the system doesn’t capture real time.

2. Work schedule records are your evidence in court

Many companies see time tracking as bureaucratic paperwork. But when labor conflict arises —dismissal, overtime claims, inspection—, the record is the evidence. If it’s not reliable, you lose.

3. Without proof, the worker wins

The legal principle is clear: the burden of proof lies with the company. If you can’t prove something with reliable data, the judge won’t assume the worst about the worker. It’s your responsibility to have a system that records reality.

4. A digital system prevents these problems

Digital time tracking with real-time capture (to the second, not the round minute) eliminates these doubts:

• Records exact time of each entry and exit
• Cannot be filled in after the fact without leaving a trace
• Is auditable: any modification is recorded with authorship and date
• Complies with legal requirements — and what the new Royal Decree will require

Don’t wait for a judge to invalidate your time tracking

If your work schedule recording system always shows the same time, or gets filled in an Excel sheet at the end of the week, or simply isn’t reliable… you have a problem that just hasn’t exploded yet.

Try Cleverfy free for 14 days and start tracking time in a real, digital, and auditable way. No commitments, no credit card required.

---

Sources: El Periódico. Ruling from Barcelona’s Social Court No. 25. Worker’s defense by Col·lectiu Ronda.