The Supreme Court has rejected the appeal filed by a security guard who worked at the Lanzarote airport and who was fired for allowing luggage containing a firearm with its corresponding ammunition to pass through security.
The events occurred on November 22, 2017, and the ruling considers it proven that the worker allowed the passage of that suitcase “without informing the Civil Guard, in charge of security at said facility, and without reporting the incident to her company.” Furthermore, she did not report that “after passing through security, this luggage had disconnected the X-ray machine, requiring it to be restarted.”
When the company became aware of what happened, it initiated the procedures for her disciplinary dismissal, which was notified to her on January 19, 2018. The affected party then filed an appeal against Prosegur Soluciones Integrales de Seguridad España S.L., Ilunión Seguridad S.A., and the Wage Guarantee Fund (Fogasa), which was rejected first by the Social Court Number 1 of Arrecife and then by the Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands. It was then that she turned to the Supreme Court, which has now also rejected her claims.
"The facts are not comparable"
With that last appeal for the unification of doctrine, the plaintiff presented two rulings from other cases that she considered had been resolved in a contradictory manner to hers. One of them referred to a worker, an employee of Carrefour, who was fired for stealing a car air freshener (valued at 3.24 euros) from another establishment of the same chain. “The difference between the tasks of the workers as well as the imputed faults prevents understanding that the sentences are contradictory,” the Supreme Court concludes, which considers that “the facts are not comparable.”
In the other ruling, the appeal of a security guard who was fired for falling asleep during his workday was upheld, and who was able to prove that he was following a treatment with medications that caused him drowsiness. In this case, the ruling also took into account that the affected party was a member of the Works Council, who was not given the opportunity “to be heard” before proceeding with the dismissal.
In her appeal, the worker at the Lanzarote airport also appealed to her status as a union member, as vice president of the union section of USTSS (Trade Union of Security and Services Workers).
However, the Supreme Court responds that the union was informed and given a prior hearing, so that it could present allegations, which were rejected by the company.
