He Supreme Court of the Valencian Community overturned the first instance judgment and declared the disciplinary dismissal of a working employee to be inadmissible a lottery administration in Elchewho was fired after she was accused of reading a book during her workday.
The woman had been working as an administrative employee since November 2017. Almost seven years old and no disciplinary punishmentreceived a monthly salary of just over 1,300 euros and was subject to the state lottery management contract. Her employment relationship developed normally until the summer of 2024, when the employee began one Sick leave due to general emergencies on June 27th.
On July 4, 2024, while on leave, he received a notice via WhatsApp of disciplinary dismissal with immediate effect. In it, the head of administration accused him of a number of behaviors that were classified as very serious: reading a book during working hours without performing a serviceFailure to comply with work hours and falsifying daily work records, as well as alleged lack of respect for a colleague.
The company supported these allegations Footage from the facility’s surveillance cameras and in the testimony of another employee, since he considers that the facts fit into several provisions of the employee statute and the applicable collective agreement.
After receiving the termination letter, the employee contacted the Conciliation, Arbitration and Conciliation Service (SMAC), where the attempted settlement was reached on August 7, 2024 without reaching an agreement. In the absence of an out-of-court solution, the affected party filed an action for dismissal with the Social Court No. 4 of Elche. At first instance, the court dismissed his claim and considered the facts alleged by the company to be proven, Employer exemption and confirmation of the origin of the disciplinary dismissal.
Since the employee was dissatisfied with this decision, he appealed to the TSJ of the Valencian Community. In his appeal he argued, among other things, that the videographic evidence have violated their fundamental rightsthat there is no proportionality between the alleged acts and the sanction imposed and that the collective agreement provides for a prior sanction before dismissal can take place in the event of very serious misconduct.
In reaching its decision, this court placed particular emphasis on the disciplinary provisions of the State Lottery Management Agreement, which provides for a gradual application of sanctions. According to this regulatory framework, even in the case of a very serious crime: The first sanction cannot be direct dismissalbut rather a suspension of the employment and salary relationship, combined with an express warning. The contract can only be terminated in the event of a repeat incident. In this case, the company has not proven the existence of previous sanctions or previous warnings, a requirement that the court considered essential and mandatory.
In addition, the judges ruled out that the other allegations contained in the termination letter, such as the alleged distortion of the schedule or lack of respect, were of sufficient importance or were correctly classified within the meaning of the agreement. The judgment itself underlines this the time flexibility tolerated in the company and the isolated nature of the events made it impossible to justify such a drastic break in the employment relationship. Consequently, the dismissal was declared unjustified, without finding any violation of fundamental rights, but rather a clear disproportion between the conduct and the sanction imposed.
Because of this restriction, the court ordered the company to make the election between two legal options: reinstatement of the employee at her job with payment of the wages not received since the dismissal, set at 43.25 euros per dayor permanently terminate the employment relationship by paying a severance payment of EUR 9,633.94.
About The Author
