Huge 100,000-euro compensation payout for supermarket worker who was dismissed following birthday gesture to colleagues

Zoom

The company considered that there was a breach of contractual good faith, as it warned in the employment contract that such an action would result in being sacked

Susana Zamora

Friday, 19 December 2025, 09:35

It was his birthday and he wanted to make a gesture to his colleagues at the hypermarket in Spain where he worked and invite them to breakfast with various bakery products, including cakes and croissants, the total of which amounted to 68,82 euros. These products were distributed for consumption at around 8am on trays between the counters of the different sections inside the shop, and were removed before the opening of the centre at 9am. However, at around 11am, the worker brought some more trays to the customer service, security and office areas and went to the cashier's desk to pay for them. The problem, as it turned out, was that the colleague only charged him 10.23 euros for a single unit of each of those four batches of products, which he paid for by card without making use of his employee discount code.

On other occasions the company itself or employees had invited the staff inside the shop and outside the opening hours to a small meal, as this employee had done. This precedent was of little use, as the company decided to dismiss him only one month after, on 14 November 2023, for breach of contractual good faith, as the original employment contract signed with the company included a clause that warned that: "The consumption, appropriation or use for personal use of all kinds of objects or goods belonging to the company, as well as the consumption of any food or drink outside the rest area would be considered a very serious offence, punishable by dismissal."

Employed at the company for 30 years

In disagreement with the decision, the worker, who had been with the company for 30 years, went to court, which in the first instance ruled in his favour, declaring the dismissal to be unfair and ordering the company to reinstate him or pay him 105,716.09 euros in compensation. A decision now ratified by the high court of justice of Galicia.

In the analysis of the appeal, consulted by SUR, the judges start from article 54.2 of the workers' statute (the transgression of contractual good faith, as well as breach of trust in the performance of work). In order to assess whether the worker breached good faith and whether such conduct deserved the maximum penalty of dismissal, the judges state that the position held by the worker in the company and his personal and professional circumstances must be taken into account. "It must not be forgotten that the dismissed worker was the 'establishment manager', and the diligence that must be demanded with greater rigour according to the responsibility of the position held and the trust placed in the worker by the company."

Nevertheless, the court considers that the alleged conduct "cannot be included in a very serious infringement, using the postulated gradualist doctrine". In this regard, they argue that the offences defined in article 54.2, in order to become grounds for dismissal, "must reach sufficient levels of culpability and seriousness, which excludes their application under mere objective criteria, requiring, on the contrary, an individualised analysis of each conduct".

Specifically, the court explained that the circumstances of this case lead them to uphold the contested decision, "since it does not reveal a conscious intention on the part of the plaintiff to appropriate certain products (not to pay for them), but rather a combined error between the note prepared for payment by the bakery section - which was not properly made and was misleading - and the dismissed person's own negligence, who paid what was reflected on the ticket, paying the difference as soon as he was aware of the error and sending an e-mail in which he released the bakery manager from responsibility. In short, on the basis of the factual framework, it cannot be considered that the plaintiff had an intention to defraud the company of money.