A Social Court of Valencia sees unfair dismissal of a woman, employee of a supermarket in which she had been working for more than 15 years, due to an incident with the weight and price of a bag of chicken I was going to buy: the ticket counted 680 grams and a price of 9.65 euros compared to 1,215 grams and 12.23 euros that other colleagues counted.
The judge agrees with the dismissal by stating that the content of the purchase was inspected without the presence of a legal representative of the workers, of another employee of the company, or of the worker herself. Thus, there are doubts about whether it was really the worker who introduced the extra chicken fillets or whether, on the contrary, the result is attributable to another colleague or manager.
This is clear from the judgment, to which Europa Press has had access, in which the judge partially upheld the dismissal lawsuit filed by the woman against a supermarket and declares the inadmissibility of the same.
In this way, it condemns the company to reinstate the worker of the Masymas supermarket, as indicated by the lawyer Javier Tarazona, the legal representative of the woman, in the same working conditions prior to the dismissal, with payment of the processing wages until notification of the sentence; or to compensate you with 22,486.94 euros.
The farewell had been working in the company, with a full-time indefinite contract, since September 2015. In January 2021, the woman, during working hours, served and weighed the products intended for her own purchase. At the closing time of the store, the boss and another person carried out a control of purchases and tickets.
The result was that the worker carried a ticket from the Butchery section with a weighing of 680 grams and a price of 9.65 euros and later it was found that the bag actually contained 1,215 grams of chicken, which corresponded to 12.23 euros. That is, 535 grams and 2.58 euros more.
Before checking the content of the workers’ purchases, the store managers took the worker’s bag from the storage refrigerator and weighed it without her presence.
After carrying out the second check in the presence of the woman, in the establishment’s offices, the worker signed a document containing the facts described. And on January 14, they fired her alleging fraud, disloyalty or breach of trust, robbery, theft or embezzlement committed in the company.
In particular, because she herself had weighed the purchase she was going to make and because the grams of chicken indicated on the weighing ticket did not coincide with those that the merchandise actually weighed, with a difference of 535 grams.
Facing dismissal, the woman filed a lawsuit and the court agrees with her. It considers that the previous registration of the chicken bag did not comply with the legal guarantees to be valid for the purpose of determining a proper dismissal, since it was done without the presence of a legal representative of the workers, another employee of the company or of the worker herself.
Thus, the judge does not observe “sufficient security and safeguard” for the rights of the worker and he sees doubts about whether it was really the worker who introduced the extra chicken fillets or if, on the contrary, the result is attributable to another colleague or manager.
Likewise, with respect to the fact that the worker weighed her own purchase without going to another worker, according to the protocol indicated by those in charge of the defendant company, the judge considers the dismissal equally inadmissible as long as the conduct does not reach the marks of sufficient severity to determine the maximum penalty included in the applicable collective agreement.
Eddie is an Australian news reporter with over 9 years in the industry and has published on Forbes and tech crunch.