A former Mercadona worker with 29 years of service faced a labor case that reached the courts and raised doubts about the merits of the disciplinary dismissal. The case began with a disputed dismissal and forced the court to consider cash reports and internal footage.
The Superior Court of Justice of the Valencian Community declared the disciplinary dismissal valid, concluding that the worker, with manager category A, repeatedly appropriated coins from the cash register. The decision was based on the breach of contractual good faith and abuse of trust, confirming that the behavior was compatible with a very serious misconduct, according to Noticias Trabajo, a Spanish website specializing in labor matters, which identifies the decision as sentence 3964/2025. 
Court decision
According to the Spanish portal, the ruling confirmed the first instance sentence and considered the facts described in the resignation letter demonstrated. The court understood that the breach of trust made the continuation of the employment relationship unfeasible.
According to Noticias Trabajo, the judges considered the negative differences observed at the cash register between February and May 2024 to be relevant. These values ranged between 12.03 euros and 21.07 euros and were associated with the worker’s actions when opening the cash drawer to charge customers. 
What the worker claimed
The worker asked for the dismissal to be declared null and void, alleging a reduction in working hours for family conciliation and violation of the right to honor. He further argued that the recordings did not unequivocally show the appropriation of money and that cash differences are common in this type of function.
The court ruled out the nullity. According to the same source, the Valencian TSJ considered that, once the dismissal for very serious misconduct was confirmed, the protection associated with the reduction in working hours did not prevent the sanction being applied. The Spanish Workers’ Statute provides, in article 55, that certain dismissals linked to the exercise of conciliation rights may be null and void, except when the dismissal is declared to be valid for reasons unrelated to that right. 
The evidence in question
The court recalled that the pleading appeal does not amount to a new full re-examination of all the evidence. The assessment made by the first instance judge, who combined the reports of cash differences with the camera viewing, was considered valid.
According to Noticias Trabajo, the evaluation followed the rules of sound criticism and made it possible to link cash losses to the acts observed in the images. The understanding was that the conduct met the requirements of fraud, disloyalty and abuse of trust provided for in the applicable regime. 
Article 54 of the Spanish Workers’ Statute allows disciplinary dismissal for serious and culpable non-compliance by the worker and expressly includes breach of contractual good faith and abuse of trust in the performance of work. Article 55 also establishes that the successful dismissal confirms the termination of the contract without the right to compensation or processing wages. 
Practical effects of the decision
When confirming the origin of the disciplinary dismissal, the court determined that there were no severance pay. The disciplinary sanction remains, despite nearly 30 years of service to the company.
Mercadona communicated her dismissal in June 2024, when the worker had been working for almost three decades, since June 1995. The ruling reinforces that, in cashier roles, trust is a central element of the employment relationship and that the appropriation of cash, even in low amounts, can justify breaking the relationship. 
The case clarifies that, in the understanding of the Spanish court, internal controls and images can support evidence in disciplinary proceedings when they are assessed together with other elements, such as cash reports. Furthermore, it shows that the employee’s seniority does not, in itself, preclude the merit of a disciplinary dismissal when the court considers a very serious offense to be proven.
The decision of the Superior Court of Justice of the Valencian Community confirms that of Juzgado de lo Social nº 4 and establishes the origin of the disciplinary dismissal. From now on, the worker is not entitled to severance pay, without prejudice to the procedural means that Spanish law may allow in specific cases.
What if it were in Portugal?
In Portugal, a case with identical contours would be classified as dismissal due to a fact attributable to the employee, when there is culpable behavior that, due to its gravity and consequences, makes the continuation of the employment relationship immediately and practically impossible. This is what article 351 of the CLT provides. The law gives examples of just cause that include harm to the company’s serious property interests. 
For the dismissal to be valid, the employer must initiate disciplinary proceedings, communicate in writing the intention to dismiss and attach a note of guilt with a detailed description of the facts alleged against the employee. The worker has the right to consult the process and respond to the notice of guilt. Therefore, under the terms of article 357, the employer has, as a rule, 30 days to make the decision, under penalty of forfeiture of the right to apply the sanction. 
Regarding video surveillance images, the Portuguese Labor Code prohibits the use of remote surveillance means to control the worker’s professional performance, but allows their use when the purpose is the protection and safety of people and goods or when particular requirements of the activity justify it. The worker must be informed of the existence and purpose of these means. 
Furthermore, Law No. 58/2019 determines, in article 28, that recorded images and other personal data collected through video systems or other technological means of remote surveillance, under the terms of article 20 of the Labor Code, can only be used in the context of criminal proceedings. The same rule allows their use to determine disciplinary responsibility to the extent that they are within the scope of criminal proceedings. The National Data Protection Commission makes the same reading in its guidelines on video surveillance in the workplace. 
This means that, in Portugal, a similar situation would have to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. The eventual appropriation of money from the cash register could, in theory, justify dismissal for just cause, especially if the breach of trust and damage to the company’s financial interests were proven. But the validity of the evidence, especially if based on images, would depend on compliance with labor standards, data protection and, where applicable, the criminal framework of the facts.
In the end, the practical rule is simple: in both Spain and Portugal, touching cash is not seen only for the value in question. The decisive point is often trust. When the court understands that this trust was seriously and negligently breached, the worker’s seniority may not be sufficient to save the employment relationship.
Also read:
