The Supreme Court of Andalusia (TSJA) has ruled that the dismissal of an employee who describes his boss as “Thief” via WhatsApp, outside of business hours and at work, there is a lack of legal justification and it is inappropriate. This resolution responds to the appeal of the worker who was dismissed after sending what was perceived as an offensive message in the context of a dispute over the payment of working hours and allowances.
The ruling, issued in October 2024, overturns the previous ruling of the Social Court of Granada, which had confirmed the company’s decision by considering several faults on the part of the employee to be proven. The first instance was one of these errors Absences from work Motivated by their own illnesses and hospitalizations of family members as well as by attending wakes, all allegedly without justification, according to Efe.
The conflict intensified when the employer asked his employee for relevant work reports. The employee stated that he worked well over 40 hours per week refused to provide documents.
Shortly afterwards, the man sent a message via WhatsApp in which he expressed: “What you have to do is pay me what you owe me, thief. You are disrespecting me by stealing from me and not paying me what you owe me.” I repeat, you are a thief. I have all the documents showing you owe me hours and bonuses.” After this notification, the employer immediately fired him.
The TSJA has focused its analysis on determining whether the insults expressed by the employee in a private conversation outside the center and during working hours constitute sufficient grounds for disciplinary dismissal. In accordance with the judgment, the court emphasizes that the Collective agreement in the metal industry requires that verbal offenses occur in the workplace itself so that they can be considered serious or very serious misconduct.
In addition, the resolution refers to the so-called “gradualist theory‘ in disciplinary matters. In this approach, the context and severity of the behavior should be assessed proportionally.
The court notes that the term “thief” was used in a colloquial toneduring a private conversation between employee and employer, not publicly or in front of third parties, which reduces its harmful potential.
The origin of the conflict lies in a work conflict financial amounts supposedly owed. The worker defended that the tension over outstanding payments was the reason for his words, which had no meaning outside the private sphere. The judgment does not dispute that the term used is offensive, but considers that it does not reach the level of seriousness required by the regulations to justify disciplinary dismissal in these circumstances.
The TSJA emphasizes the importance of defining the scope of employment sanctions, particularly when the events occur outside of the strictly work environment and time. The court emphasizes that the current regulation is aimed at this Ensure a good atmosphere in the workplacenot to extend corporate control to employees’ private lives.
The judgment therefore states unfair dismissal and forces the company to do so reinstate the employee or pay compensation. The decision could have implications for future controversies surrounding the use of private messaging and social networks in the workplace, as well as the interpretation of the limits of companies’ disciplinary powers.
The ruling could still be appealed to higher authorities, but it initially represents a relevant criterion for the difference between behavior in the workplace and in the private sphere, even if it includes offensive statements.
About The Author
