The Social Chamber of the High Court of Justice of the Canary Islands has issued a landmark ruling dismissing an appeal filed by an employee against the company's decision to terminate his contract through disciplinary action. The court's decision fully upholds the initial ruling issued by the Social Court No. 4 of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, confirming that the employee's conduct constituted an untenable breach of good faith in the contract and an abuse of trust in the management of company resources.
The affected employee had been working for the distribution company since February 2007 as a transport manager. His responsibilities included overseeing the arrival of goods and ensuring the smooth operation of logistics at various centers in Gran Canaria and Lanzarote. To carry out these tasks, the company provided him with a company vehicle and a credit card exclusively for covering fuel and subsistence expenses directly related to his work.
The company's internal controls raised red flags when they detected a blatant anomaly in fuel consumption patterns. The plaintiff was making significantly more fuel purchases than other employees in equivalent positions, despite having fewer assigned service stations on the island. After a detailed analysis of his travel, the company confirmed that fuel purchases were occurring unjustifiably, just days apart, frequently coinciding with the eve of vacation periods, days off, or weekends. This was compounded by the improper allocation of personal dining expenses, such as a dinner after a training session in Tenerife and a meal at a fast-food restaurant in the south of the island on his day off.
When his area coordinator demanded an explanation, the employee attempted to justify the disproportionate fuel expense by citing a change in his personal circumstances: his relocation from the municipality of Ingenio to the Mogán region. Under this premise, the employee sought to use the increased mileage resulting from the greater distance to his logistics workplace as a pretext to legitimize the continuous charges levied by the company. However, the High Court of Justice of the Canary Islands completely dismantled this legal and factual argument.
The judges stated in their ruling that the change of address was not formally communicated to the management bodies at the time and that, in any case, the allegation constituted an attempt to fabricate factual scenarios not substantiated in the initial account. The court emphasized that the actual distances and routes did not justify the detected refueling pattern. As irrefutable proof of intent, the court highlighted that, after being asked by his superior in December 2024 to explain the irregularities, the number of monthly refuelings dropped drastically to five, even though none of his personal circumstances had changed, and he maintained the same address and operational duties.
In its legal reasoning, the Social Chamber reiterates the established doctrine of the Supreme Court regarding Article 54 of the Workers' Statute. The judges recall that the principle of good faith constitutes an essential and ethical pillar of the employment contract, demanding a much higher standard of conduct from employees who, like managers, hold positions of trust and responsibility.
Although the court acknowledges the application of the gradualist theory for assessing the proportionality of disciplinary sanctions, it concludes that the repeated fraudulent conduct, the lack of evidentiary justification on the part of the employee, and the breach of loyalty fully justify the adoption of the most severe dismissal measure. Thus, the ruling upholds the dismissal, exempts the company from paying severance or back wages, and reinforces the principle of rigorous oversight of corporate resources within the Canary Islands business sector.