The business group El Corte Inglés risks paying compensation of 171,587 euros to a former employee, after the Spanish labor court considered the dismissal that had been applied to him to be unfounded, according to several Spanish media, including the sports newspaper AS, the portal Infobae and the specialized website NoticiasTrabajo.
This worker joined the company in 1988 and, over the decades, gained responsibilities. In 2015, he took on more important positions in the Electronics area in Aragon and Navarra and, in 2019, he was responsible for supervising merchandise sent to the company’s electronics outlet in a shopping center in Zaragoza.
According to Noticias Trabajo, obsolete products or products with minor defects were placed in this space, sold at significant discounts to speed up the release of stock. The price and discount system was recorded in reports reviewed by audit, by department heads and by the purchasing management area, and was known to the hierarchical chain.
Unexpected dismissal letter
On March 15, 2024, the supervisor received a disciplinary dismissal letter effective immediately. The letter was based on an internal audit report triggered by an anonymous complaint through the company’s Ethics Channel.
According to El Corte Inglés, the employee had authorized or permitted price reductions of between 70% and 90% on certain products, when the maximum limit provided for in internal protocols was 50%. In 35 sales analyzed, 17 registered discounts between 70% and 90%, while the rest were around 57% to 58%.
The audit also concluded that part of the operations involved items that had never been physically transferred to the outlet, with personal El Corte Inglés cards being used to simulate sales in that space, although the products were delivered to other establishments in the chain. Discrepancies between the theoretical inventory and the actual stock in the warehouse and labeling problems were also detected.
In view of the decision, the worker took legal action to contest the dismissal, asking for it to be null and void. He argued that the discounts were within internal regulations, that the settlement system was known by the various levels of management and that the material execution of sales and labeling was the responsibility of the outlet’s staff, not him. He also highlighted that the only personal purchase he made concerned a demonstration product, which was permitted by internal policy.
First decision already favorable to the worker
The case was initially tried at the Juzgado de lo Social n.º 3 de Zaragoza (Labor Court n.º 3 in Zaragoza). At this stage, the judge analyzed the documentation and heard witnesses from both parties, concluding that:
• The practices described in the dismissal letter actually existed,
• But they were part of a discount system known and agreed upon by the company’s structure, including purchasing and management departments,
• And it was not proven that the worker had directly intervened in the most controversial sales, nor that he had acted in bad faith or in search of personal benefit.
For these reasons, the court of first instance declared the dismissal unfounded, applying article 56 of the Spanish Workers’ Statute, and ordered El Corte Inglés to reinstate the worker or, alternatively, to pay him compensation calculated based on his seniority, plus the wages he no longer received since the dismissal (processing wages).
Not satisfied, the group decided to appeal to the Superior Court of Justice of Aragon (TSJ), asking for the decision to be revoked and insisting on the thesis of a serious breach of good faith and abuse of trust, according to the same source.
Superior Court confirms the groundlessness
In reviewing the case, the Social Room of the TSJ of Aragão, in sentence 575/2025, highlighted that there was no direct evidence of the worker’s personal intervention in the contested operations, nor of a serious and culpable breach of his duties.
The judges highlighted that many of the practices, such as high discounts on defective products, fictitious transactions and special rules for demonstration items, had long been tolerated and supervised by departmental managers and the purchasing center itself.
Thus, the Superior Court shifted the weight of responsibility from the supervisor to the overall functioning of the company’s discount system and concluded that there were not sufficient grounds to consider the dismissal justified. It therefore confirmed the decision of the first instance and the unfoundedness of the dismissal.
The ruling leaves the company faced with two options:
• reintegrate the employee into their job position, maintaining their seniority; or
• pay him compensation of 171,587 euros, plus wages not received from the date of dismissal until the final decision.
Impact for the business group
According to , the case draws attention to the management challenges in a group the size of El Corte Inglés, where the application of discounts and commercial campaigns follows complex internal rules, but where actual practice may deviate from the manuals and be tacitly accepted by the hierarchy.
Despite the seriousness of the initial accusations, which included discounts above the limits and alleged favoritism of employees, the court understood that the organization itself and internal supervision allowed these practices, which made it impossible for the worker to be held individually responsible through disciplinary dismissal.
What if it were in Portugal?
In a similar scenario in Portugal, the case would be analyzed in light of the Labor Code. If a court declared the dismissal to be unlawful, the general rule would be for the worker to be reinstated in the job, with the maintenance of seniority, and the right to receive the remuneration that he no longer received since the dismissal until the decision became final, the so-called “interim salaries”, under the terms of articles 389 and 390 of the Labor Code.
Alternatively, the worker may opt for compensation in lieu of reinstatement, the amount of which is set by the court at between 15 and 45 days of basic pay and seniority payments for each full year (or fraction thereof) of seniority, with a minimum of three months of remuneration, in accordance with article 391 of the Labor Code and the respective recent jurisprudence.
Also read:
