2024-11-18 11:16:00
This was declared by the Superior Court of Justice of Castilla-La Mancha unfair dismissal of a worker who consumed a kibble that had not been sold and that it would be thrown away, once this was understood there was no motive for misappropriation or profiteering.
In a ruling dated October 15, to which Efe had access and which the newspaper El País reported, the social court rejects the appeal presented by a supermarket chain against a May 2024 ruling of the social court no. 1 of Toledo. The worker provided services in a shopping center and, on 8 July 2023, when the shop had already closed, he took a croquette from the shelf where the unsold ones were stored and were about to be thrown in the garbage and ate it. A colleague reported the facts to the coordinator, to whom the employee confirmed the facts, and a few days later he was fired..
All workers present in the workplace know the company instructions, given through the coordinator It is forbidden to consume the factory’s products without advance payment, even those destined for waste or breakage. (products withdrawn from sale). And everyone “at some point” consumed this type of product (withdrawn from sale and destined for the garbage) without the knowledge of the coordinator, according to proven facts.
The company considered the consumption of the kibble a very serious crime.sufficient to justify the disciplinary dismissal of the worker when “he himself was perfectly aware, based on the training, orders and instructions given to him, that he was prohibited from consuming the factory’s products without first paying for them”.
The Supreme Court understands that the worker’s conduct does not constitute a crime because, as the agreement states, “the consumption of any product without having previously paid for it implies that such product has a retail price that the worker has not satisfied”, and in this case The kibble he consumed has no market value“not even negligible, since those destined for waste could not be put on sale to the public”. As regards “the misappropriation of company products intended for waste or promotion”, the Supreme Court recalls, the agreement refers to products in the plural and not to a single product.
There is no misappropriation when there is no “legitimate possession of the product” and “even less is there the necessary profit motive for such appropriation to be possible, nor a correlative impoverishment or financial damage to the company, when the product (the croquette) it has no market value at the time the plaintiff “consumed” it. The TSJ therefore found the dismissal inadmissible.ratifying the previous ruling of the lower court.
#Fired #eating #kibble #ended #garbage #inappropriate #Justice
What are the key employee rights related to workplace policies on food consumption?
Interview: Analyzing Employee Rights and Workplace Policies
Time.news Editor (TNE): Good morning, and thank you for joining us today. We’re here with Dr. Elena Martínez, an expert in labor law and employee rights, to discuss a recent ruling by the Superior Court of Justice of Castilla-La Mancha that has captured the attention of many. Dr. Martínez, welcome!
Dr. Elena Martínez (EM): Thank you for having me. I’m excited to delve into this important topic.
TNE: Let’s start with a brief overview of the case. A worker was dismissed after consuming a single unsold croquette from their supermarket, which was about to be thrown away. The court ruled this dismissal as unfair. What are your thoughts on this decision?
EM: The ruling highlights a significant aspect of employment law: the principles of proportionality and fairness. When the court determined that there was no intent to misappropriate the goods, it also considered the context—the croquette was destined for the garbage. This sets a precedent that workplace rules need to be justified according to reasonableness and fairness in their enforcement.
TNE: It appears this case opens up discussions about workplace policies. Could you elaborate on the implications for companies regarding their consumption policies for unsold food items?
EM: Absolutely. Companies must ensure that their policies are not only clear but also fair and considerate of the reality of wastage. In this case, the established rule prohibited consumption without payment, which can be problematic if employees routinely witness such practices. This ruling encourages companies to re-evaluate their policies, especially concerning food waste.
TNE: Many of us know that regulations vary significantly across industries and regions. What might this ruling mean for similar cases in other sectors?
EM: It could potentially empower employees in various industries to challenge unfair dismissals, especially regarding minor infractions that don’t impact the company’s bottom line. It also raises questions about sustainable practices and the social responsibilities of companies, especially in our current climate where food waste is a growing concern.
TNE: The ruling also mentioned that the other employees had previously consumed similar “waste” products without repercussions. How does this relate to the concept of fairness within the workplace?
EM: That’s a crucial point. The inconsistency in enforcement creates a perception of injustice. This ruling reminds employers that they must apply their policies uniformly. If employees perceive rules as selectively enforced, it can lead to dissatisfaction, reduced morale, and even legal challenges.
TNE: As a labor rights expert, what would you recommend companies do in light of this ruling?
EM: Companies should conduct a thorough review of their policies to ensure they are adaptable to the realities of their operations. It’s also vital for management to communicate these policies clearly, providing training on the reasoning behind them. Encouraging a culture where employees can voice their concerns about workplace practices will build a more just environment.
TNE: Thank you, Dr. Martínez, for your insights on this significant ruling. It’s apparent that this case generates broader conversations about labor rights, food waste, and corporate responsibility.
EM: Thank you for having me! It’s critical we keep these discussions going to foster better workplaces and sustainable practices.
TNE: And to our readers, stay tuned as we continue to explore this evolving story. Thank you for joining us!