The Social Chamber of the Supreme Court rules in this ruling of November 2, 2022 (rec. 2513/2021) that the disciplinary dismissal of a security guard who committed an intentional crime when he was not performing the functions of his job is appropriate, but which led him to lose his qualification as a security guard.  

Through a Resolution of the Director General of the Police, it was agreed to extinguish the security guard's qualification, so it is understood that he is incapable of performing private security services.

The company proceeds to the disciplinary dismissal of the worker based on the agreement of private security companies under article 74.11, which classifies as a very serious offense “Direct or indirect participation in the commission of a crime classified as such in criminal laws, which entails the withdrawal of the authorization for Security Guards.”

The criminal action was carried out in the worker's personal time, so the contentious controversy in this matter lies in elucidating whether the loss of qualification as private security personnel because a security guard has committed an intentional crime when he was not performing his duties, constitutes a cause for disciplinary dismissal or objective dismissal due to sudden ineptitude.

The dispute was initially resolved by the Social Court number 8 of Murcia, declaring the origin of the dismissal. Not being satisfied with the Court's decision, the worker's legal representation filed appeals, which were dismissed by the Superior Court of Justice of Murcia.

Once again, the worker's legal representation filed an appeal before the Supreme Court alleging a single reason. It denounces the violation of articles 58, 20 and 52 in section a) of the Workers' Statute and articles 74.11, 75.3 and 64 of the State Collective Agreement for security companies, alleging that conventional violations must be limited to the workplace. For this reason, he requested that the disciplinary dismissal be declared inadmissible.

Failed: The Supreme Court confirms the ruling handed down by the Superior Court of Justice of Murcia, which ratified the ruling of the Social Court number 8, declaring that the dismissal is disciplinary and without the right to compensation or processing salaries.