Lidl is present in Portugal with over 270 stores and the Lidl Plus Digital Discount Program, used daily by thousands of customers, works the same way in Spain. It was precisely this system that was the source of a controversial case in Melilla, where an employee with more than ten years of home was fired for accumulating discounts from customer purchases. The Spanish justice eventually gave him reason and nulliously declared the company’s decision, according to the newspaper Online Noticias Work.
Accusation of misuse of discounts
Hired since 2011 as a cashier and repositor, the worker had a part -time contract of 25 hours per week. In August 2021, he was dismissed after an internal investigation concluded that he associated customer purchases with his personal mobile phone, accumulating advantages of the Lidl Plus program. In a single day, it will have gotten discounts worth 191.43 euros, which the German jail classified as a very serious foul.
In the charter, the Lidl invoked a break of confidence. However, the decision occurred only two weeks after the employee requested an adaptation of the time for reasons of family reconciliation, which raised doubts about any retaliation.
First court decision
The worker filed a complaint at Melilla’s social law, asking for the nullity of the dismissal. The court gave it reason, recognizing that, although the facts were proven, there was no evidence of a relevant personal benefit.
According to the same source, the court also added that the practice of registering purchases with other cards was frequent among employees at times of greater affluence to speed up queues.
The Lidl was sentenced to reintegrate the employee at the same post and conditions, to pay her wages lost in the meantime and even compensation of 6,000 euros for moral damages.
High Court confirms decision
The company appealed to the Andalucía Superior Court of Justicia, alleging procedural errors and arguing that there was no violation of fundamental rights. However, according to the online newspaper, the appeal was rejected and the nullity of the confirmed dismissal.
According to the judgment, there were strong evidence that the dismissal was a reprisal. In addition to the request for adaptation of the time, the employee had backwards of lows, factors that the judges considered relevant to conclude that the decision was more reactive than disciplinary.
Also read:
