In a recent resolution, the Superior Court of Justice of Castilla-La Mancha has ratified the dismissal of a truck driver who, throughout 2021, published various videos on the TikTok platform while doing his job. The company, which was later sued for the dismissal, alleged that some of these videos were recorded while the employee was driving negligently on different roads in Spain.

These videos, shared on the worker's profile on TikTok, were used as the main argument by the company to justify the driver's dismissal. On January 5, 2022, the company notified the employee of the opening of a contradictory file, prior to a possible disciplinary dismissal, which was finally carried out days later through a letter notifying his immediate dismissal.

Dissatisfied with the company's decision, the fired truck driver filed an appeal before the Court. However, the Social Court number 2 of Guadalajara dismissed the lawsuit on February 7, 2022, qualifying the dismissal as "procedural." Persistent in his disagreement, the worker filed a new appeal, arguing a factual review and examination of the applied law, according to sections b) and c) of article 193 of the Law Regulating Social Jurisdiction (LRJS).

In support of his appeal, the truck driver presented numerous WhatsApp conversations between him and his superior, in which he expressed his dissatisfaction with the long hours and the alleged poor organization of the company. In addition, discussions were made public in which the employee expressed complaints related to his job.

A key element presented as evidence was a message sent by the employee a month before his dismissal, in which he informed the company of his return from vacation and stated that he would comply with his employment contract of 8 hours a day and 40 hours a week. According to the worker, this message and conversations with his boss showed that the dismissal was a reaction to his claims and, therefore, should be considered "null and void."

The TSJ, when evaluating the case, concluded that the TikTok videos, in addition to representing negligent conduct, were likely to cause harm to the company. The ruling established that these recordings were meaningless and useless, and forced the worker to divert his circulatory attention, which could compromise road safety. Consequently, the Supreme Court supported the decision to consider the dismissal as "appropriate" based on the principle of contractual good faith included in the Workers' Statute.

Failed: dismissal of the appeal filed by the worker against the sentence handed down by the Social Court number 2 of Guadalajara in its and the appealed sentence is confirmed.