For years, everything seemed routine in a small bank branch in the Basque country (Spain): a single responsible employee, few customers and a discreet service. In 2023, however, the employing entity distrusted early delays and closures, and resorted to a private detective. The case came to court and the dismissal was confirmed.
According to the Spanish portal El Adelanda, the worker had been working since 1999 as director and solely responsible for a CaixaBank branch in a quiet town. It was up to her to serve customers, manage operations and ensure safety. It made nothing predict that the post would change hands before the reform.
The beginning of the suspicion
In 2023, the board detected irregularities in daily operation: the agency seemed to open later in a few days and close before the public in the public. To clarify, the institution hired a private detective who accompanied the director’s routine over almost a month.
The report concluded repeated defaults: delays at the beginning of the journey, in extreme cases, up to 59 minutes, and early exits that reached 42 minutes. On certain days, customers will have been waiting for the door to the opening, registered the company in the charter.
From the inquiry internal to the disciplinary dismissal
Faced with the evidence collected, CaixaBank applied disciplinary dismissal (without compensation). The collaborator contested the decision in court, invoking two main arguments: testimonies of clients satisfied with their performance and the alleged need for schedule for family reasons.
The action rose to the Social Room of the Basque Superior Court of Justice (TSJPV), after a first unfavorable decision to the worker. The defense insisted on the absence of damage to the service and in the personal context.
The TSJPV devalued customer testimonials, stressing that the satisfaction of some users “does not invalidate the facts imputed in the letter of dismissal.” As for flexibility, the court stressed that there is no formal request submitted to the employer.
According to the court decision was further: it was proven that the worker manipulated the attendance control system to hide late entries and early exits, a reiterated practice for about three months, unidentified attenuating.
Result: Valid dismissal
In the face of the fact of facts, non -compliance with time, impact on compliance and deliberate concealment, the Court upheld the disciplinary dismissal. For the judges, it was severe from the contractual duties, incompatible with the confidence required to those who direct a branch.
The sentence reinforces a sensitive point in contexts with few human resources: Being alone in an agency or store does not eliminate the possibility of inspection, either by digital or direct observation.
What remains from this case
For companies, the judgment reaffirms that organized and documented evidence (registrations, reports, continued observation) is decisive in labor disputes. For workers, he recalls that any time flexibility must be formally requested and authorized, avoiding gray zones.
In a labor market where autonomy grows in many functions, this case reveals the limit: operational trust requires transparency and compliance with basic rules, starting with respect for public service hours.
Also read:
