In this ruling of the Supreme Court, dated October 17, 2023 and appeal number 5073/2022, it seeks to determine whether the dismissal of a supermarket worker, accused of misappropriating unpaid products worth less than six euros, should be considered appropriate, in accordance with the provisions of the disciplinary regime of the applicable collective agreement, or inappropriate due to the insignificant value of the stolen products. The worker had been fired for violation of contractual good faith and failure to comply with the collective agreement.

The social court of Vitoria-Gasteiz had declared the dismissal inadmissible and the ruling of the Social Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of the Basque Country confirmed this decision.

The collective agreement classified the appropriation of any item, regardless of its value, as a cause for dismissal, and jurisprudence considers dismissal for appropriation of company assets to be legitimate, regardless of its value, as long as it causes a breach in the trust necessary in the employment relationship. However, the individual context of each case must be considered, and theft does not automatically justify dismissal.

In this case, the worker had been in the company for 4 years, had no history of previous sanctions, the appropriation did not involve machination or concealment, and the value of the stolen objects was very low. Therefore, the Supreme Court ruling concluded that the appropriate sanction should be less serious than dismissal, since the value of the objects and the economic damage to the company were minimal.

In this case, the central question is to determine whether the misappropriation of products by a supermarket worker, without paying for them, justifies an appropriate dismissal, in accordance with the provisions of the applicable collective agreement, or if, on the contrary, the dismissal should be considered unfair due to the low value of the stolen products. AND The social court initially ruled in favor of the worker, declaring the dismissal inadmissible, its ruling being confirmed by the Social Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of the Basque Country.

Given the company's disagreement with the rulings of the aforementioned courts, the company filed an appeal for unification of doctrine, alleging contradiction between the ruling of the TSJ of the Basque Country and another of the TSJ of Madrid (R. 485/2013).

 The Supreme Court resolves, appreciating that it is evident that the correct doctrine is found in the contrasting sentence, which requires the approval of the appeal and the subsequent cassation and declaring the annulment of the appealed sentence, to resolve the debate in supplication.

Failed:

1.- Consider the appeal for the unification of doctrine filed by Supermercados Champion SA.

2.- Marry and annul the sentence issued on June 14, 2022 by the Social Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of the Basque Country, in appeal no. 744/2022.

3.- Resolve the debate in supplication, considering that of such class and revoke the ruling of the Social Court no. 1 of Vitoria, dated January 14, 2022, proceedings no. 283/2021.

4.- Dismiss the dismissal claim filed by the worker against Supermercados Champion SA, declaring the origin of the dismissed dismissal.