Catching two employees not doing their job is not enough to fire them

The workers did not offer the passenger wipes or the menu, and they did not give him the option to choose breakfast accessories, among other details.

A ruling from the Superior Court of Justice (TSJ) of Madrid has confirmed the inadmissibility of the dismissal of two workers who were caught by a supervisor failing to fulfill their duties. They were two employees of the concession company that provided service on Renfe trains, in this case on a route between Huelva and Madrid.
The train stopped in Córdoba, where only one person got on in business class, who coincidentally was traveling as a passenger carrying out services supervision duties on behalf of Renfe.

During his trip he was able to verify that the employees did not comply with all the protocol of the services that Renfe had agreed with the concessionaire: they were not offered a towel, nor the menu, nor were they given the option to choose breakfast accessories, among other details. If, on the other hand, you leave due to voluntary leave, you can always calculate your settlement.

Furthermore, thirty minutes before arriving at the destination, the scheduled drink was not offered, so the supervisor got up and surprised the two employees sitting in the passenger car (one reading and the other apparently asleep), something they expressly have forbidden.

All of this caused a financial penalty from Renfe to the concessionaire company, classifying non-compliance with the contracted service as serious misconduct. The company, which decided to fire the workers for this reason, implied that the events caused them to lose the award to another company, something that the TSJ denies.

Both the lower court ruling and now the Madrid court have considered the dismissals inadmissible, pointing out that the imposition of sanctions must be gradual and proportional.
Although they recognize that the service has been negligent, affecting its proper functioning, they remember that this is "isolated conduct" that does not deserve the maximum sanction of dismissal.
www.expansion.com