The Court concludes that the worker's activity on Instagram and TikTok as an influencer did not violate contractual good faith or affect her recovery.

The appeal No. 3113/2024, filed by the defendant company, is resolved against the ruling of the Social Court No. 1 of Palencia (orders 206/2024) that analyzes the legality of the disciplinary dismissal of the worker.

Ms. Flora had been providing services since February 2017 with an indefinite contract and category of 1st clerk in a mobile phone sales company. The application agreement is that of Palencia Metal. She became a mother in December 2021 and took advantage of a reduction in working hours with specific hours, which gave rise to orders No. 139/2022.  He was on temporary disability leave from November 18, 2023 to February 19, 2024 with a diagnosis of anxiety.

The worker, before finding herself in IT,Since September 2023, he was active on social networks such as "Beauty Influencer," advertising beauty products and telling her personal experience.

On January 23, 2023, the company notified the dismissal of the worker via burofax, alleging violation of contractual good faith and abuse of trust.(art. 54 and 55 of the ET). In the letter, they argued that the worker published videos on social networks (Instagram and TikTok) in which she performed commercial functions similar to those she performed in her workplace, promoting beauty products with a very positive attitude. They considered that this activity was incompatible with their situation of temporary disability. In addition, they indicated specific dates of the publications, corresponding to November, December 2023 and January 2024.

The Social Court No. 1 of Palencia declared the dismissal inadmissible because it was not proven that the worker's activity affected her recovery or that it represented fraud for the company. For this reason, they ordered the company to reinstate or compensate the worker.

The company based the appeal in art. 193.c of the Law Regulating Social Jurisdiction alleging infringement of art. 54.1. and 2.d of the ET,arguing that any work activity, whether employed or self-employed, during the IT implies a violation of contractual good faith and justifies disciplinary dismissal. The worker challenged the appeal, arguing that her activity on social networks was compatible with her IT situation and did not harm the company.

The TSJ of Castilla y León dismissed the appeal filed by the company and confirmed the lower court ruling and declaration of inadmissibility of the dismissal, confirming the jurisprudence applied in the lower court ruling.

To analyze the violation of contractual good faith, they were based on two criteria:

• Simulation of illness: There is no evidence that the worker faked her disability.
• Activities that delay or prevent recovery: It is not demonstrated that the videos on social networks affected their improvement.

The activity of a "Beauty Influencer" cannot automatically be equated with fraud or harm to the company.. Ms. Flora published short videos that were supposed to bring her some financial benefit.

The existence of fraudulent action against the company is not proven.

An appeal is possible for Cassation for Unification of Doctrine.