The TSJ of Castilla y León validates the legality of the private investigation, but concludes that the activities observed, including moderate alcohol consumption, do not prove simulation or harm the worker's recovery, ruling out the existence of a disciplinary cause.

The appeal No. 1476/2025 filed against sentence No. 1566/2025 issued by the Social Court No. 3 of León on March 21, 2025, in cases 879/2024, is resolved.

The worker provided services such as supermarket manager and was in a situation of temporary disability(IT) from April 10, 2024.

He October 7, 2024, the company proceeds to its dismissal for violation of contractual good faith and abuse of rights, in accordance with art. 54.2.d, art. 20.2 of the Workers' Statute and art. 39.3 A and H of the company's own Agreement. In the dismissal letter, the worker was charged with carrying out activities contrary to and incompatible with your medical situation and your IT declaration, maintaining that there were indications that the worker was qualified to perform his position.

The facts described in the letter were supported by a private detective report, which followed up for three days,September 30 and October 2 and 3, 2024, in which they were attributed to the worker activities allegedly incompatible with IT, a active life and even alcohol consumption.

The company had entrusted the investigation to the detective on August 20, 2024, providing him with the identity and address of the worker. However, he was not located until September 30, the date on which the company summoned the worker to its facilities for follow-up with the company's medical services. Upon leaving said appointment, the detective finally began monitoring.

At the trial, Leopoldo, the plaintiff's brother, testified that the worker went to the company's medical services at the end of September and stated that he was feeling better and that he wanted to return to work in October. Leopoldo also contributed a primary care physician report, dated October 2024, which stated that the TR had its origin in a diagnosis of depression, that the worker had been under pharmacological treatment until August 6, 2024, the date on which he was suspended by the psychiatrist pending progress. Furthermore, the report indicated that the recreational activities were not contraindicated, but were even recommended.

The worker sued the company requesting nullity or alternatively the inadmissibility of dismissal. The Social Court declared unfair  the dismissal.

The company appealed alleging annulment of the sentence, review of proven facts and legal censure in the application of the ET and Convention.

The company alleged violation of arts. 87 and 90.1 LRJS in relation to art. 24.1 CE, maintaining that the lower court ruling deprived him of his right to defense by excluding the probative effectiveness of the private detective report. The Social Court had considered that said evidence was illicit due to lack of suitability, necessity and proportionality, and because it constituted an intrusion into the worker's private life.

The TSJ does not share this criterion,rules out the illegality of the evidence and rejects the requested annulment. Consider according to law private investigation in the workplace (LEC 265.5; Law 5/2014 on Private Security, art. 48.1.a) always with intimacy limits(no intimate life in homes or reserved places) and criteria of necessity, suitability and proportionality. In the case, there was no violation of privacy. The images were captured in public places or visible from the street. The follow-up lasted three days and the investigation responded to reasonable cause, internal communication of facts allegedly incompatible with the IT. No intrusion into the home or humiliating treatment was found. The company provided the detective with the basic data to fulfill the assignment. 

The Court,remember the testimonial value of detective reports private data, including audio reproductions, videos and other media that the trial judge must evaluate. The TSJ rules out the existence of helplessness, since the lower court ruling assessed the behaviors included in the dismissal letter as consistent with those detailed by the detective, and concluded that they did not justify the dismissal.

The TSJ highlights that according to the jurisprudential criterion Not all activity during IT constitutes disloyalty. It's just punishable behavior which are sufficient gravity or intention:

1. Be susceptible to disturb healing of the worker according to the nature of the illness and occupation.
2. O evidence work aptitude with the consequent simulation and damage to the company. 

It is accepted that the IT worker can carry out a normal life and activities compatible with the recovery process.

The TSJ concludes that neither simulation nor delay in healing is accredited. The consumption of alcohol (4–5 beers on each of the three days) does not prove detrimental to recovery, especially since there was no active pharmacological treatment on those dates or express medical prohibition; In addition, the primary care physician's report supports the compatibility of recreational activities.

The facts stated in the dismissal letter, even if proven, do not reach the necessary seriousness to justify disciplinary dismissal.The appeal filed by the company is dismissed and the lower court ruling is confirmed.