Disciplinary processes in large retail chains require rigor and transparency, especially when dismissals for alleged serious infractions are involved. A recent case involving Mercadona in Spain illustrates the importance of complying with all legal requirements when communicating and justifying a decision of this nature, after a manager has gone to court challenging the validity of his dismissal letter.
The internal complaints that led to the process
The case dates back to June 2023, when Mercadona received two anonymous reports through the internal channel “L900”. The complaints referred to inappropriate behavior attributed to a shift manager at a store in Malaga, identified in the files as “manager B”.
The accusations included offensive language, arbitrary changes to schedules and the assignment of tasks considered impossible to carry out. The complaints also included expressions considered disrespectful, such as those directed at an employee who requested time off to go to the gynecologist, according to the digital newspaper specializing in economics and business Noticias Trabajo.
Mercadona’s initial decision
Given the content of the complaints, the company concluded that the reported behavior violated the internal collective agreement and proceeded with disciplinary dismissal. The letter sent to the worker generically listed the accusations, but, according to the defense, it did not identify dates, witnesses or concrete elements that would allow each allegation to be understood in detail.
Challenge in the courts
The manager contested the dismissal in the Social Court No. 7 of Malaga, claiming that the letter was too vague and that the lack of duly specified facts made his right to defense unfeasible. The court considered this argument to be valid, concluding that Mercadona did not comply with the legal requirements applicable to the disciplinary dismissal of the manager,
The company then appealed to the Superior Court of Justice of Andalusia, according to the same source. The TSJA confirmed the first instance decision, highlighting that the anonymous complaints were not accompanied by consistent material evidence and that the worker had no effective opportunity to counter the accusations. Therefore, the dismissal was considered unfounded.
Compensation set by the TSJA
As a consequence of the invalidity of the disciplinary process, the court ordered Mercadona to pay the worker compensation of 77,205.60 euros.
The decision highlighted the need to ensure factual clarity when communicating dismissals and respect for workers’ defense rights. The company may also appeal to the Spanish Supreme Court.
The episode, according to , highlights the limits of using anonymous complaints in disciplinary processes. Although useful for detecting inappropriate behavior, they require rigorous verification and cannot, in themselves, support a dismissal decision without all required legal guarantees being met.
What if it happened in Portugal?
In Portugal, a similar case would be analyzed in accordance with the Labor Code, namely articles 351 and 357, which regulate dismissal for just cause and the formal requirements of written communication.
Portuguese law requires that the guilt report accurately describes the facts alleged against the worker, including dates, circumstances and evidence, allowing him to fully exercise his right to defense.
Worker’s opportunity to respond
Pursuant to article 353, the worker must have the opportunity to respond to the guilt notice and present any means of proof that he considers relevant. The absence of a concrete description of the facts, as happened in the Spanish case, may lead to the dismissal being declared illegal.
If the Portuguese court concluded that there was a lack of justification or a violation of the right to defense, the dismissal of this Mercadona manager would be considered unlawful, applying the regime of articles 389 and 390, which provides for the employee’s reinstatement or, if this does not occur, the payment of compensation and overdue remuneration.
Also read:
