The Social Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid has confirmed the qualification of impropriety of the dismissal of the worker who, in the middle of an argument with a co-worker, uttered expressions such as “you are a bad ladybug”, “you will end up alone” and “no one loves you”.
The climate of confrontation and tension that was generated in the center “is attributable to both parties
Sentence, from March 28, 2022evidence that we are faced with a “isolated or punctual episode” of the worker’s working life after nearly four years of service provision in the same company.
–
Acts
At the end of April 2021, after working since September 2017, the plaintiff worker received a disciplinary dismissal letter.
The actor is the oldest worker in the center
The reason? A heated discussion that occurred in mid-April between the dismissed employee and a co-worker at the store where they both worked:
“What is your year of birth? there goes one your age”, the partner told the plaintiff. After that, the actor replied “that his head was like garbage, empty. You’re a bad ladybug and you’re going to end up alone”. Not enough with that, the companion replied: “I also think a lot of things about you, but better each one in his own way”. After a supervisor intervened to calm things down, already in the locker room area, the dismissed worker said again to his colleague: “You’re bad, bad fagot, nobody loves you”.
When these events occurred, there was no no customer in the shop.
Unfair dismissal
In October 2021, already in court, the Social Court No. 3 of Madrid upheld the dismissal claim filed by the worker and branded it as unfounded the termination effected.
“The actor’s conduct was not serious enough and guilty enough to justify the dismissal.” (Photo: Pexels)
–
Not satisfied with this, the company appealed and warned, among other reasons for appeal, that the lower court ruling did not properly assess the behavior of the actor. Specifically, according to the appellant, the threats and expressions made were “clearly offensive” and they did not occur under a climate of joke, jargon or colegueo; but with a joking o intention of injuringbeing hurtful comments that, even in a relaxed and relaxed setting, are not a joke, but turned out to be humiliatingy with intent to harm.
The threats and expressions made were “clearly offensive”
Thus, in the opinion of the appellant, the dismissal should be declared appropriate, since said faults are typified as offenses very serious in the code of ethics and in the collective agreement applicable to the company.
Instead, now, the Social Chamber of the TSJ of Madrid despise the appeal filed by the company and confirms the appealed judgment.
According to the Court, the climate of confrontation and tension that was generated in the center “is attributable to both parties”. The fact that the colleague told the fired worker “there goes one your age”, calling it between the lines “old”, is a “provocation” that, even though it seemed innocuous, had a perverse effect on the actor, who “had been treated like a generalized anxiety disorder”, announces the Social Room.
The sanction of dismissal is the last due to its seriousness and importance among all those that can be imposed in the world of work
Then, “valuing such expressions in the context in which the events occurred and valuing in a gradualist sense all the concurrent subjective and objective circumstances, among which it stands out being a isolated or punctual episodewe understand that the behavior of the actor it was not serious enough and guilty enough to justify the dismissaleven more so if possible considering the lack of previous sanctions despite having been providing services in the company for four years”, declares the TSJ of Madrid.
Thus, before “the Lack of entity and seriousness of the facts enough to classify his conduct as a very serious misconduct”, the Court decides to dismiss the appeal, confirm the resolution of the instance and declare the dismissal unfair, even though the actor’s behavior “is clearly reprehensible” and without prejudice to the fact that the appellant company could have, in its case, “sanction the facts for a minor or even serious fault, of those that do not entail dismissal”, concludes the recent ruling.
–
