A Mercado Human Resources official was failed to have authorized a higher salary than a new worker, without supposed authorization from the company. However, the Superior Court of Asturias (TSJA) considered that the dismissal was unfounded.
The worker performed personnel management functions and work relations. According to the reason for the conflict was the setting of a remuneration of 2,067.51 euros gross monthly to a new contractor, a value above the one established in the company’s tables.
Company claimed abuse of trust
Mercado argued that the collaborator acted without permission and modified, by its own initiative, a relevant economic condition, which constituted, according to the company, a serious transgression of its duties.
Worker appealed to court
The collaborator contested the accusation, stating that such practice was known internally and had never generated any warning. Given the situation, he decided to file a complaint to the Labor Court.
The court of first instance considered that there were no evidence of bad faith, nor that the act was intentionally hidden. On the contrary, he concluded that it was a practice tolerated by the company’s management.
Despite the decision, the company decided to resort to TSJA, claiming that there was disrespect for the internal rules and breach of confidence, citing Article 54 of the Spanish Workers Statute.
Superior Court rejected the company’s argument
The TSJA understood that the Mercado could not demonstrate that there was a clear internal norm to ban such contractual clauses. Moreover, he said that the practice was known by the Board and had never been sanctioned.
Sentence underlines absence of intent
In the decision, the court stressed that “it is not believed in any way that the contract was concluded with concealment or intent”, stressing that the worker’s action was not arbitrary.
Judges have not seen reason to break confidence
For TSJA, the alleged breach of confidence does not apply when the company itself allows certain practices. The lack of a clear prohibition was decisive for the outcome of the process.
We recommend:
Dismissal considered without just cause
The Superior Court declared the dismissal as unfounded, which requires the Mercado to choose between reintegrating the worker or paying him compensation.
According to the court, it was proved that this type of clause had been previously used and that there has never been any disciplinary action regarding this.
Compensation amount exceeds 36 thousand euros
If you choose not to reintegrate the employee, Mercado will have to compensate it with 36,245.99 euros, as stipulated in the sentence.
Trust cannot be broken without clear rules
The TSJA sentence also states that “it is not necessary to speak of the transgression of good faith when there are no clear instructions, nor is it intention to harm.”
Jurisprudence reinforces labor rights
This case reinforces the importance of clarity in the internal norms of companies and the limits of disciplinary sanctions in the labor context.
Also read:
