This ruling from the Supreme Court with appeal number 701/2021 analyzes the case of the dismissal of a domestic worker who is suspected of having stolen €30,000 and various jewelry from the home where she worked.

The employers realized that the double bottom where the safe was located was open, verifying that €30,000 was missing. The employer's husband checked the house and found that several pieces of jewelry had also been stolen.

He filed a complaint with the police station about this fact, expanding it a month later, pointing out that he had placed a surveillance camera in the home directed at the closet where the safe is located and that he had recorded the housekeeper opening the closet door, removing the lid of the safe and trying to open it, but was unable to do so as the complainant had entered a security code, leaving everything as it was again.

The employer disciplinaryly dismissed the domestic worker for breach of contract and breach of trust.

The domestic worker filed a lawsuit for dismissal, which was dismissed by the ruling of the Social Court No. 3 of Gijón, which declared the admissibility of the dismissal. The worker did not agree with the aforementioned sentence and appealed. The TSJ of Asturias upheld the appeal presented by the domestic worker, without taking into account the recording as a means of proof.

Against the sentence handed down in supplication, an appeal was formalized for the unification of doctrine by the employer. The question raised in the appeal for the unification of doctrine is whether the video surveillance evidence provided by the employer to justify the dismissal should have been taken into consideration. What is requested in the appeal for the unification of doctrine, filed by the employer, is the cassation and annulment of the ruling of the TSJ of Asturias and that the ruling of the Social Court, which did take into account the recording of the domestic worker, be confirmed.

In its report, the Public Prosecutor's Office is interested in estimating the appeal for cassation for the unification of doctrine.

The contrast sentence is analyzed, referencing clear differences in the particularity of both cases. The debate surrounding them is whether the company must previously inform of the existence of video surveillance, the appealed ruling and the contrasting ruling establishing different doctrines that must be unified.

Once analyzed, the judges determined that video surveillance in this case was a justified and suitable measure for the purpose pursued, since without this means the serious non-compliance that occurred and its authorship could not be proven.

Failed: It is appropriate to uphold the appeal for the unification of doctrine, to marry and annul the appealed sentence and, resolving the debate raised in the petition, to dismiss the appeal of that type filed by the employee and confirm the ruling of the Social Court.