The High Court of Justice of Asturias endorses dismissal by email only if the company proves that the worker received the letter

 

The High Court of Justice of Asturias (TSJAs) has specified the requirements that must be met for an email dismissal letter to have legal validity. In its judgment 294/2026, of February 24, the Social Court confirms the unfairness of the dismissal of a Just Eat delivery driver, considering that the company did not prove that the worker had effectively received the communication.

The ruling does not reject the use of digital means in labor relations, but it does establish clear limits to ensure legal security and the worker's right to defense.

The case involves Takeaway Express España SL, a company that operates under the Just Eat brand in Spain. The company dismissed a delivery driver from Oviedo for alleged unjustified absences during several days in August 2024.

The dismissal communication was made through DocuSign and an email sent on August 19. However, the issue arose because that email address was not included in the employment contract, where only a postal address was provided.

The worker denied receiving the email, and the company could not prove otherwise.

Both the Social Court No. 2 of Oviedo and subsequently the High Court of Justice of Asturias concluded that the dismissal should be declared unfair.

The three conditions for a valid dismissal by email

The Court bases its decision on article 55.1 of the Workers' Statute, which requires notifying the dismissal in writing detailing the facts and the effective date.

Although the court acknowledges that email can be used as a valid means of notification, it establishes three essential requirements for it to have legal effects.

1. Good faith on the part of the company

The company must act in a loyal and transparent manner when using email as a channel for labor communication.

The judgment deems it insufficient to use an address obtained from internal records if the worker never expressly provided it to receive communications related to their contract.

2. Existence of prior agreement

There must be some kind of prior agreement, even if tacit, on the use of email for this type of communications.

The requirement is even more demanding when using a personal email and not a corporate account provided by the company.

3. Effective reception test

The most important element for the court is to accredit that the worker actually received the message.

The Court makes it clear that proving the email was sent is not enough. The company must prove that the worker actually accessed the communication.

Without proof of reception, there is no valid notification of dismissal.

In this specific case, none of these three conditions were proven.

The company also failed to prove the absences.

The judgment not only analyzes the formal defect of the notification. It also examines the substance of the matter and concludes that the company also failed to prove the unjustified absences that led to the dismissal.

As the only evidence, Takeaway Express provided unsigned timekeeping sheets unilaterally prepared by the company.

The court deems this documentation insufficient due to the lack of documentary contrast, comparative records, or evidence of the alleged previous sanctions that the company claimed to have imposed.

The Court reminds that the burden of proof lies with the employer and concludes that this obligation was not fulfilled.

Consequences of the judgment

As a result of the finding of unfair dismissal, the company must choose between reinstating the worker and paying him the processing wages or paying compensation of 1,147.62 euros.

In addition, Takeaway Express has been ordered to pay the procedural costs and forfeit the deposit made for appeal.

The judgment could still be appealed to the Supreme Court through a cassation appeal for the unification of doctrine.

The resolution of the Asturias High Court sets a relevant criterion on the use of email in labor communications. The court confirms that digitization does not eliminate the legal guarantees required in a dismissal and that the company must act in good faith, prove the valid use of the channel, and demonstrate that the worker actually received the communication.