An employee was fired in Germany after allegedly spending long periods in the bathroom during working hours. The decision provoked reactions on social media and reopened the debate about the extent to which a company can allege abuse when a worker is repeatedly absent from work.
According to Executive Digest, a website specializing in current affairs and business, the dismissal letter states that, despite prior warning, the employee took extended breaks in the bathroom, including periods of 42, 46 and 48 minutes recorded over three days in September.
When an absence becomes abuse
Experts indicate that going to the bathroom can only justify dismissal if there is proof that the employee was deliberately absent to reduce actual working time. Article 54 of the Workers’ Statute provides for disciplinary dismissal in cases of breach of contractual good faith, abuse of trust or continuous and voluntary decrease in income.
To justify the more severe measure, the company would have to demonstrate that the worker’s behavior was serious and culpable, evaluating the frequency and duration of absences, possible testimonies of activities unrelated to physiological needs and recurrence.
Right to toilet time
Labor lawyer Juan Manuel Lorente explained that, in principle, a company cannot control the time an employee spends in the bathroom and cannot demand that this time be made up.
The expert emphasizes that time spent in the toilet is actual working time and that jurisprudence has protected workers in these cases. Even so, it allows exceptions if abuse of breaks is proven.
Limits to employer monitoring
Another relevant point is the legality of employer control. A company cannot systematically time the times spent going to the bathroom, as this practice may violate the worker’s dignity, intimacy and physical integrity, rights protected by article 18 of the Workers’ Statute.
As mentioned by , even if abuse is suspected, the burden of proof falls entirely on the employer, who must unequivocally demonstrate the existence of deliberate and continued behavior.
An example of excessive control
Although doubts remain about the authenticity of the letter, the case clearly exposed the extent to which excessive control can conflict with workers’ basic rights. The episode brought to public debate the fine line between the legitimate organization of work and respect for the privacy and dignity of those who work.
According to the same source, this situation ended up becoming a symbolic example of the tension between the supervisory power of companies and the most basic needs of workers, raising questions about how far surveillance in the workplace can go.
In Portugal, is it legal to fire people for this?
Dismissal based on the employee’s behavior is only considered legitimate, in Portugal, when there is just cause, as defined in the Labor Code. In practice, the law requires that the behavior is truly serious, that there is guilt and that its consequences make the continuation of the employment relationship unsustainable.
Furthermore, disciplinary dismissal cannot be carried out arbitrarily. The law requires the completion of several steps, such as opening an investigation, presenting a note of guilt and guaranteeing the worker’s right to defense.
If this procedure is not respected, the dismissal may be considered unlawful. These legal requirements end up limiting, in a very significant way, the possibility of justifying the termination of the contract solely on the basis of prolonged breaks.
How does this translate into practice in Portugal
In practice, in Portugal, an employer can only proceed with a dismissal of this type if it complies with all legal procedures and is able to clearly demonstrate that there was bad faith or abusive behavior on the part of the employee.
Just counting the minutes spent away from work, without taking into account possible health problems, without proving concrete losses to the company and without giving the worker the opportunity to defend himself, is rarely enough to sustain a just cause.
Portuguese courts tend to analyze these cases with particular care, looking at the real seriousness of the situation, the frequency of absences, the proportionality of the sanction and the personal context of the worker before accepting the validity of a disciplinary dismissal.
Also read:
