The Court confirms the dismissal of a worker for violating the duty of probity and committing serious misconduct.

The appeal No. 1628/24, filed against the ruling of the Social Court No. 1 of Palencia (records 37/2023), which dismissed the worker's claim and acquitted the company, is resolved. The Public Prosecutor's Office was also part of the process.

Ms. Laura, employed as a baker's assistant since 03/15/2019, with a permanent contract and a salary of €38.73/day, was fired on December 21, 2022, the company based the decision on:

• Unjustified abandonment of your job.
• Repeated failures to comply with schedules and punctuality.
• Appropriation of company products (flour, oil, empanadas).
• Preparation of cakes for personal consumption during the work day.

A few days before, on December 11 and 12, Ms. Laura was on medical recommendation for 48 hours of rest and from the 13th she was on IT. Between December 1 and 10, 2022, she filed complaints against her ex-partner Walter, who was a co-worker, for events that occurred from October to December 2022.

The company classified these behaviors as serious misconduct, based on sections a), c) and d) of article 54.2 of the Workers' Statute, which include repeated lack of attendance or punctuality, offenses to colleagues or employers and violation of contractual good faith.

The Social Court No. 1 of Palencia dismissed the lawsuit, absolving the company of both the nullity and the inadmissibility of the dismissal. Against this resolution, Ms. Laura's defense filed an appeal, invoking three main reasons:

1. Nullity of actions: He alleged helplessness due to the bad relationship with the witnesses, especially with Mr. Walter. However, the court concluded that there was no real defenselessness, since D. Walter's testimony corroborated what was stated by three other witnesses. The court recalled that the annulment of actions is an exceptional measure that must be reserved for cases of material and effective defenselessness, which was not proven in this case.
2. Review of proven facts: The worker requested the modification of the factual account, questioning the assessment of the evidence, but she did not comply with the procedural requirements to justify specific errors in the sentence, nor did she demonstrate how said review would substantially affect her right to defense.
3. Incorrect application of the law: He alleged that the alleged conduct did not justify disciplinary dismissal. The Chamber considered that the proven faults, such as the appropriation of property, non-compliance with schedules and abandonment of the position, constituted a serious transgression of contractual good faith. He highlighted that the company had the power to sanction these actions in accordance with the applicable collective agreement.

The TSJ of Castilla y León determined that The proven conduct constitutes a serious breach of the trust placed by the company, especially because the worker did NOT deny the alleged facts, but rather questioned their seriousness and application of the maximum sanction of dismissal. Furthermore, he maintained that The misappropriation of products and the repeated failure to comply with their obligations violated the duty of probity that governs the employment relationship.(art. 5 of the ET).

Based on these arguments, the Court concluded that he dismissal was originating and reaffirmed the lower court decision, highlighting that the seriousness of the actions fully justified the maximum penalty imposed by the company. The appeal was dismissed.