Can a medical leave save a worker who missed two consecutive days, when on those same days she was abroad on a trip? The Puerto Montt Court of Appeals answered no. In its judgment of June 10, 2026 (Labor Case No. 1-2025, First Chamber), it granted the company's annulment appeal, set aside the ruling that had declared the dismissal unjustified, and immediately issued the replacement judgment upholding it. The point is no small matter: medical leave, on its own, is not an automatic shield against the ground of unjustified absence.
What happened
The case arises from a dismissal based on article 160 No. 3 of the Labor Code. The dismissal letter charged the worker with unjustified absences on February 9, 12, and 13, 2024, although the controversy centered on the 12th and 13th, the two days the medical leave sought to cover. The company terminated the contract and she sued for unjustified dismissal before the Labor Court of Puerto Montt (RIT O-150-2024), with subsidiary liability sought against the principal company, Cermaq Chile S.A.
At first instance, the worker won. The court reasoned that there was a reasonable ground for the absences: a medical leave with rest from February 12 to 26, 2024. For the trial judge, it was enough to prove a cause that reasonably justified the absences, and the leave, authorized by Compin, fulfilled that role even though it had been issued after the dismissal.
The company filed an annulment appeal. The Court rejected the ground of lack of reasoning (article 478(e), in relation to 459 No. 4), but granted the subsidiary one: manifest infringement of the rules of sound judicial reasoning (sana crítica) (article 478(b), in relation to 456 of the Labor Code).
What tipped the balance? The facts established in the trial itself. The worker had left the country on February 9, 2024, bound for Argentina. On February 12 she was in Villa Angostura, where her vehicle had broken down after a trip to Bariloche. She returned to Chile on February 13. Medical leave No. 17342653-4, prescribing absolute total rest, was issued that same February 13 at 4:54 p.m. — that is, retroactively and after the dismissal. And in her WhatsApp conversations with the company's attendance officer, the worker never mentioned being ill. The Court's decision rule was categorical: a retroactive leave cannot justify absences that, according to the evidence, were due to a personal trip.
What it may mean for your company
The ruling attacks a deeply ingrained belief in people management: that any medical leave automatically justifies any absence. It does not. The leave is a powerful piece of evidence, but it does not immunize the worker against the ground in article 160 No. 3 when the rest of the evidence directly contradicts it.
The legal argument has a technical name: the principle of logic in its 'sufficient reason' dimension, one of the rules of sound judicial reasoning by which the judge must assess the evidence. The Court applied it clearly. A leave prescribing absolute total rest is incompatible with the person being, on those same days, abroad, traveling to Bariloche. If the worker's actual conduct contradicts the prescribed rest, the leave loses force to justify the absence.
There are nuances worth keeping in mind. This does not mean you can disregard a legitimate leave or dock days without more: a valid leave, consistent with the worker's conduct and timely reported, still justifies the absence. The difference here was the combination of three factors: a leave issued after the dismissal, absolute rest out of sync with a trip abroad, and the worker's silence about any illness at the time of the absence. Bear in mind, moreover, that this is a Court of Appeals ruling, subject to unification of jurisprudence before the Supreme Court; it sets a relevant criterion, not a settled doctrine.
There is another angle that must not be overlooked. The principal company, Cermaq Chile S.A., had been held subsidiarily liable. If you contract third-party services or outsource your workforce, poorly executed dismissals by your contractors can end up hitting you through subsidiary liability. Care with the ground and the evidence is not only the direct employer's concern.
Do you work with contractors or outsource your workforce? Schedule a 30-minute review of your exposure to subsidiary liability.
What you can do now
- Document the absence before invoking the ground. Gather the attendance control record, communications with the worker (emails, WhatsApp, messages), and any information about their whereabouts. The evidence that won this case was contemporaneous with the facts, not constructed afterward.
- Review the consistency of medical leaves — their issue date, the dates of the absences, the type of rest, and the worker's actual conduct. If there is a manifest contradiction, assess it with your labor advisor before deciding on termination.
- If you outsource services, audit how your contractors carry out dismissals. Demand minimum standards for the ground and the evidence, and review your indemnity clauses. Subsidiary liability turns someone else's mistake into your own cost.
If any of these three points raises questions, a 30-minute diagnostic session is enough to size up your gaps. Schedule here.
This content is informational and does not constitute legal advice.