The Social Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of the Basque Country (TSJPV) pronounced the dismissal of a worker who put bleach in a water bottle with your name “teach a lesson” colleague to drink it because on several occasions other workers had drunk from his bottle and “his patience was running out”.
The TSJPV thus confirms a judgment of the Social Court 4 of San Sebastián according to which “declared the origin of the dismissal” of this worker if we consider that “this sanction is proportional to the behavior committed”.
The San Sebastián court said it was proven that the woman had worked as a cleaner in a sports center since 2014 and that in this center employees had a refrigerator where they could leave their drinks and food. There are others there too commonly used water bottles to use them for themselves or to offer them to clients.
The employee used to leave her water bottle in this refrigerator, but on several occasions other workers had drunk it, so much so that she once found it in the trash.
On November 3, 2023, the woman left a half-liter bottle bearing her name in this refrigerator and poured certain amount of bleach. Two days later, another worker drank from that bottle and, realizing it contained more than water, spat out what he had drunk.
“Shit”
When asked about this, the woman admitted that she had used bleach and said: “I don’t care.” The companion was treated in the emergency room without any abdominal injury being detected. The woman was fired by the company on November 10, 2023, finding that her actions represented “fraud and disloyalty in the entrusted efforts”as well as in relations with colleagues, and “a violation of contractual good faith”.
The Social Court 4 of San Sebastián rejected the complaint filed by the worker against this dismissal and declared it appropriate. The woman appealed to the TSJPV and alleged that the imposition of the most serious sanction (dismissal) “violated the principle of proportionality and the gradual theory”.
He thus maintained that there was not “enough seriousness and guilt” in his behavior because his intention was not to poison his companions, because if it were the case “he would not have identified the bottle with his name”. Furthermore, he emphasized that the employee had not suffered any injuries and had not been subject to any disciplinary measures previously.
The TSJPV maintains, however, that the lower court’s decision correctly applied the graduated doctrine in upholding the admissibility of the dismissal. The court recalls that it was proven that the woman had poured bleach into her bottle, a substance which “we know that can cause serious damage to health“.
Furthermore, she emphasizes that, from the proven facts, which have not been refuted, she “strongly deduces” that it was an act “.conscious and willing to teach a lesson the worker to drink from his bottle because his patience was running out.” “We understand that the complainant committed a very serious violation of contractual good faith, good faith being the correct behavior which must govern the employment contract at any time and its transgression may result in disciplinary dismissal”, adds the Social Chamber of the TSJPV.
Furthermore, the Court considers that there are “the element of culpability or intentional element“, without this failure requiring the production of a harmful result, since it is based on the loss of confidence and, where applicable, on potential damage.”
Finally, it ensures that the fact that the employee has not been sanctioned beforehand, that she has not hidden her identity (by putting her name on the bottle) or that the colleague has not suffered harm that could causing him to have a work stoppage are “minor”. circumstances which, in this case, do not allow the behavior to be assessed with less severity, since what is definitive is that the appellant, consciously, putting the health of colleagues at real risk and for a trifle. » This decision is not final and can be appealed to the Social Chamber of the Supreme Court.
