A case in 2021 now returned to the news, after the Superior Court of Justice of the Canarys decided in favor of a former Mercado employee. The worker, who had been playing functions in the fishmonger section since 2015, was fired after cleaning a calamar before grief, gesture that, according to the company, violated the internal rules.
At the source of the supermarket chain decision was the fact that the employee prepared the animal without the presence of any colleague, leaving him later on the ice machine without the weighing bead. According to As, at the time of payment, already outside working hours, it had the bead in my pocket instead of having it inside the shopping bag.
Company recreated the episode with another worker
In order to evaluate the impact of the action, the company asked another employee to repeat the process with a similar calamar. The weight difference between the raw and clean product was 320 grams, which, according to Mercado, proved an attempt to reduce the price of the article.
Weight difference served as justification for dismissal
The company’s argument was based on the allegation that the cleaning of these animals causes losses of 300 to 400 grams, which, in their view, would make evident the worker’s intention to pay less than due. Based on this assessment, a disciplinary sanction was applied with dismissal.
Violation of internal rules was an aggravating factor
According to the same source, and according to the company’s internal protocol, a worker is not allowed to weigh and label products intended for himself, and the intervention of another employee in the process is mandatory. This non -compliance was pointed as a determining factor for the applied sanction.
Worker appealed to the Superior Court of Justice
The worker, not agreeing with the decision, decided to challenge the dismissal, taking the case to the Superior Court of the Canaries. He argued that the successful did not constitute a very serious infraction, but a serious misconduct, which did not justify the termination of the contract.
During the process, he presented as justification the fact that he bought a small calamar, from 950 to 842 grams after cleaning. This difference, he said, would be perfectly acceptable for smaller specimens.
The argument was accepted by the court, which understood that there was no intention of obtaining illicit benefit. He also considered that the company did not have sufficient evidence to demonstrate willful conduct or the existence of a standard weight loss.
We recommend:
Judges criticized assumptions used by the company
The judges classified as “inexplicable” the assumption of the market that there is a fixed weight loss and that this fact would prove an irregularity by itself. It was also stressed that there was never any explicit prohibition of drafting or cleaning the calama before weighing.
Absence of attempted concealment weighed on the decision
On the other hand, the court valued the context in which the situation occurred, namely the fact that the worker was alone and there was no attempt to conceal the product or receipt.
Dismissal was considered unfounded
The sentence now rendered considers the dismissal as unfounded. The decision obliges the market to readmit the worker or, as an alternative, to pay him compensation for the termination of the contract.
Company will have to pay more than 15 thousand euros
According to the amount set by the court was 15,006.42 euros, as compensation for damages caused by unjustified dismissal. This amount should be paid if the company chooses not to reintegrate the employee.
This is another episode in which the courts reject the application of disproportionate sanctions by employers, even when there are specific internal norms. The case has generated debate on the limits of labor discipline and the rights of workers in retail.
Decision may influence similar cases in the future
This outcome may serve as a reference for other situations in which dismissal for internal rules are discussed. The importance of clear and proportional evidence was again underlined by the courts.
Also read:
