A worker at a transport company in Alicante was fired despite working the hours stipulated in the contract, in an unusual case that ended up being decided in court in favor of the employer. At issue was the habit of arriving 30 to 40 minutes before the start of the shift and maintaining this behavior even after warnings not to do so.
The case, reported by the Spanish press, draws attention because it goes against the idea that arriving early is always a sign of commitment. Here, the company claimed that this anticipation brought no operational benefit and created a management problem in the workplace.
According to what was reported at trial, and cited by the Spanish newspaper AS, the worker had a fixed entry time of 7:30 am and, even so, consistently showed up earlier, remaining at her post without starting her duties, because the shift had not yet started.
What motivated the conflict
The employer gave verbal warnings so that the worker would only show up after the established time, but the behavior continued. The company interpreted the situation as a unilateral change in schedule, even though the contractual time was met.
The central argument presented was that the worker spent this time “standing still”, without assigned tasks, as she was unable to start the activity before the official time. For the company, this created a negative climate and organizational losses.
In the process, the employer also associated the episode with the employee’s attitude, maintaining that early presence did not translate into productivity or collaboration with the team.
Why the court did not consider the dismissal “unfounded”
The court decision considered relevant the fact that the worker ignored clear instructions to correct her behavior. The court’s reading was that, by insisting on a practice that was not agreed upon, the worker ended up harming the organization of work.
A determining point was the existence of previous warnings, even verbal ones, and the persistence of behavior after these warnings. In other words, it was not just “arriving early”, but rather the refusal to comply with the company’s instructions on how the service operated.
In the view presented, the dismissal was not treated as an arbitrary measure, but as a consequence of a problem communicated and not corrected, which helped to rule out the idea of unjustified dismissal.
The lawyer’s explanation and what remains of the case
Labor lawyer Juanma Lorente explained on social media that, when a company formalizes a warning about behavior, the worker is expected to adjust their conduct. The key, in this case, was the disregard for the guidance after the warning.
According to this interpretation, and in accordance with the company did not punish “punctuality”, but a practice considered inappropriate for the service and maintained despite instructions. From then on, the court understood that there was a basis for the decision, within the framework of the process.
What if it were in Portugal?
In Portugal, the situation would be analyzed mainly in the light of two ideas: the employer defines the hours and rules for organizing work and the worker has the duty to comply with orders and instructions related to the execution and discipline of work, as long as they are not illegal or violate basic rights.
Systematically arriving early is not, in itself, an automatic reason for dismissal. But if the company gives a clear instruction (for example, “not to enter/be at the station before 7:30 am”) and the worker persists in ignoring it, this could turn into a disciplinary issue for disobedience, especially if there is an impact on the operation (confusion at the station, conflicts, pressure on managers, security, access control, etc.).
Even so, to reach a dismissal with just cause, the company would have to demonstrate seriousness and repetition, and above all comply with the disciplinary procedure (with formal communication, possibility of defense and reasoned decision). In practice, the most common would be to start with a written warning and, if necessary, other proportional sanctions before dismissal.
What this episode could mean for other workers
In practical terms, the simplest lesson is that working hours are not just a personal reference, but an operational rule. If the company defines that attendance should start at a certain time, complying with this guidance may be as relevant as not arriving late.
It is also clear that warnings, even when they do not seem “serious”, can carry weight if the behavior is repeated. In a work context, insisting on a practice that the employer has already asked to stop can be interpreted as a lack of collaboration.
Finally, the case highlights the importance of clarifying in writing internal rules, pre-shift tasks and entry procedures, to avoid ambiguities that end in litigation and difficult decisions for both parties.
Also read:
