The Court dismisses the appeal, supporting the proportionality of the sanction imposed for violating the good faith and image of the company.

Appeal No. 611/2025 is resolved against the ruling of the Social Court No. 15 of Madrid (Orders 1008/2023), with the intervention of the Public Prosecutor's Office, in the procedure followed for dismissal.

The worker She had been providing services since May 2018 as a manager in a telephone establishment located in a shopping center. Since April 2022, he enjoyed a working day adaptation for family conciliation, consisting of a rotating system of two weeks in the morning shift and two weeks in the afternoon shift, from Monday to Saturday. The applicable Collective Agreement was the Metal Trade Agreement of the Community of Madrid.

The establishment had a public service area, identified with the entity's logos, and an area intended for storage.

In the middle of July 2023, the company learned that the worker, during her work day,uniformed and both in the customer service area and in the warehouse, he had recorded various videos that he later spread on the social network.TikTok. In total he published twelve videos different, with varied content and messages. For this reason she was fired on 9/6/2023. Several videos are described in the sentence and the first of them:

The worker appears in the public service area, uniformed and with a mask placed under her chin, with the label: ““My boss doesn’t understand what the problem is about why people don’t last so long here.”.

In the ruling of instance declared the origin of the dismissal and the legal representation of the worker presented appeal with three reasons. The first two, which requested a factual review, are not considered because they are not relevant nor do they alter the ruling of the sentence.

He third reason of the appeal, formulated under article 193 c) LRJS, denounces the violation of article 218 LEC, in relation to article 97 LRJS, for having incurred the lower court ruling in infra petita incongruity. HE holds that the Court left unresolved an essential allegation raised in the lawsuit: the violation of Article 7 of Convention No. 158 of the ILO, (right to be heard, opportunity to defend, procedure prior to dismissal, guarantee against arbitrary dismissal) an issue that was reiterated in the trial.

The TSJ of Madrid reasons that they cannot estimate this extreme  because, according to the STS of November 18, 2024 (Rec. 4735/2023), the dismissal occurred on September 6, 2023, that is, before the publication of said Supreme Court resolution. 

The Court recalls the consolidated jurisprudential doctrine on the requirement of proportionality and individualized analysis in disciplinary dismissals that establishes, among others, the following criteria:

a) Contractual good faith  It is an essential element of the employment contract. It integrates the content of the employment relationship and acts as a limit to the exercise of the rights of both parties, demanding behavior in accordance with the rules of loyalty, probity and trust or reciprocal fidelity.

b) His transgression  can present varying degrees of severity, but when it is serious and guilty, constitutes sufficient cause for dismissal. This occurs when the trust, fidelity and loyalty implicit in any employment relationship is broken.

c) The absence of economic damages  or the absence of personal gain do not by themselves exclude the existence of an infringement, although they may influence the assessment of severity.

d) It is not necessary to prove a specific intent to cause harm or act disloyally; A serious and culpable breach is sufficient, even due to negligence.

e) The duties of fidelity and good faith  They are especially intense in those who occupy positions of trust or responsibility, due to the greater relevance of the functions performed.

The jurisprudence recalls that, given the severity of disciplinary dismissal as the maximum sanction, its application requires a restrictive interpretation, and the imposition of minor sanctions may be considered when the facts do not reach sufficient severity.

The Chamber concludes that said doctrine leads to the dismissal of the appeal. The Court agrees with the Magistrate of the instance in which the sufficient gravity to justify disciplinary dismissal. The analysis of the third proven fact and the content of the videos reveals a behavior carried out within the work center, wearing the uniform of the company, and with a clear negative impact on corporate image. Furthermore, one can see in the videos a critical intentionality which cannot be considered an innocuous manifestation, resulting provided the degree of business reproach.