A Mercado employee was fired after being caught consuming store products without paying, including chocolate -filled croissants and cookies packages. The company, when detecting irregularities in the stock, installed hidden cameras in the warehouse to realize what was going on.
The inappropriate behavior of the worker was duly registered by the company, which presented concrete evidence of the infraction committed. The severity of the conduct led the company to make the decision to dismiss, considering that the employee’s attitude clearly violated the internal principles and norms of the organization.
The case was later analyzed by Social Court No. 2 of Toledo, which validated the company’s decision.
Court considers dismissal justified
The situation was discovered through hidden cameras installed in the store’s warehouse. The company decided to resort to this means of surveillance after detecting irregularities in the stock count, which raised suspicions about possible internal theft.
The worker, who performed responsibility for the company, was filmed to consume products and hide packaging in discreet places, trying to hide their actions.
The company considered this practice a serious misconduct, which compromised the relationship of essential trust between employer and employee.
Worker dismissed
After being fired, the official appealed to court, arguing that the sanction was disproportionate. It argued that a temporary warning or suspension would be more appropriate measures, as the products consumed had a reduced value.
The former employee also pointed out flaws in the resignation letter, claiming that it contained errors that could invalidate the company’s decision. However, the court rejected the arguments and confirmed the legitimacy of the dismissal.
Toledo Social Court No. 2 argued that the severity of the infraction justified the extreme measure. The decision also pointed out that the evaluation of the evidence was the jurisdiction of the first instance judge, who considered dismissal an appropriate act in the face of the worker’s conduct.
Recommended:
Hidden cameras were cool
One of the aspects raised in the case was the legality of using hidden chambers. The defense of the worker questioned whether the company could resort to this type of surveillance without violating privacy rules.
The Court concluded that the installation of the chambers was in accordance with the law. The company had previously informed the existence of video surveillance systems in the workplace, which made the collection of valid images as proof.
According to the court ruling, the purpose of video surveillance was to clarify doubts about the loss of stock and not invade the privacy of workers. For this reason, the images obtained were considered lawful evidence.
High Court confirms decision
According to the case, the case arrived at Castilla-La Mancha’s Superior Court, which upheld the decision of the lower court. The higher instance rejected the application of the so -called “gradualist theory”, which suggests the imposition of minor sanctions before a dismissal.
The Higher Court considered that the employee’s action broke the necessary confidence between boss, market, and employee, making it impossible to maintain the work bond. Thus, he confirmed that the sanction applied by the market was adequate.
With this decision, the understanding that acts such as improper consumption of products in the workplace can be considered justified reasons for dismissal, even when the values involved are reduced.
Also read:
