The Superior Court of Justice of the Canaryes has legitimately declared the dismissal of a Ryanair ramp agent who tested cannabis positive during safety control at the airport. The decision confirms the previous sentence and considers that the worker severely violated the security rules required for his position.
This case dates back to February 14, 2023, when Guardia Civil conducted drug and alcohol control at the entrance of airport employees, according to the work news. The worker, with a contract without a term since 2009 and a salary of 2,176 euros gross per month, accused positive cannabis consumption, according to the work.
From this result, the Aen, Spanish airport management entity, Ryanair informed that the employee had violated safety rules in the operating area. As a consequence, personal accreditation and permission of Aeroportuaria (PCA) was removed for him for a period of 90 days.
Clear standards, sensitive functions
The safety regulation of Aen is explicit: it prohibits permanence or conduction in the airport zone under the influence of psychoactive substances, being considered “affected” any individual who exceeds the legal limit established in the General Circulation Regulation.
Based on these grounds, the Irish airline reported the disciplinary dismissal of the worker in April 2023, invoking disobedience, disloyalty, abuse of trust and violation of good contractual faith, according to the same source.
The employee decided to challenge the decision and filed a lawsuit in the Labor Court No. 5 of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria. However, the court rejected its request and validated the dismissal for just cause.
The severity of functions prevails
Disagreeing, the worker appealed to the Superior Court of Justice (TSJ), claiming that he had not presented any symptom of poisoning and unaware of the internal rules of both Aen and Azul Handling, a company subcontracted by Ryanair to manage land personnel.
Nevertheless, according to the same source, the TSJ upheld the previous decision, stressing that the arguments presented did not decrease the severity of the facts. The court stressed that a ramp agent does not perform administrative tasks, but functions “in the context of high dangerousness, where any error can cause catastrophic consequences.” The judgment points out that the presence of psychoactive substances in the body, even without external signs, is a direct violation of legal and contractual obligations for those who operate in sensitive airport areas.
Security above all
Among the risks pointed out, the Court referred to the driving of vehicles on the track, the proximity of moving aircraft and the handling of luggage that may contain hazardous materials. These factors justify the requirement of strict compliance with security rules.
The fact that the worker continued to work for a few days after the test was not considered relevant to the outcome of the process. The Court understood that the company acted within legality as it advanced to the dismissal, given the nature of non -compliance.
Antiquity without weight in the decision
The antiquity of the worker at Ryanair (over 13 years) was also not taken into account as an attenuating factor, according to the same source. For judges, non -compliance with basic operational safety rules is in itself sufficient to justify the immediate rupture of the labor bond.
This decision follows the same understanding that had already been adopted in another similar process in the Balear Islands, in which an employee was fired for identical reasons.
Prevalence of Airport Security
Judgment 000919/2025 marks another example of the rigidity with which Spanish courts are dealing with cases of psychoactive substances in the airport context. Recent jurisprudence points to a clear priority of operational safety compared to other factors such as the absence of symptoms or ignorance of regulation, the.
The TSJ unmistakially concludes: “The vulneration of a security standard in this specific context, even without immediate visible effects, represents an unacceptable breach of trust and fully justifies disciplinary dismissal.”
Also read:
