The Social Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands (TSJC) has declared appropriate the dismissal of the manager of a pharmacy in Santa Cruz de Tenerife who unilaterally tripled his salary, so that it went from the agreed monthly 3,700 euros to almost 10,000.
The worker initially set a salary of 45,200 euros per year through a senior management contract as managing director, although months after increasing it he was fired, the company alleging disciplinary reasons.
Specifically, he was accused of failing to present accounts, improperly increasing his salary, and improper use of the company card, among other violations.
The worker was hired by his own father and owner of the pharmacy who, when he told him that his salary was going to be increased, referred him to a person in charge of the company, whom he apparently never contacted.
His father was also at the forefront of the dismissal lawsuit, defending the company and against his son’s position.
The dismissed person claimed almost 73,000 euros in compensation, an amount that he claimed had been agreed upon at the time with the pharmacy, which, for its part, always maintained that the dismissal was appropriate, although in principle it was considered otherwise by the Labor Court.
For this reason, either his reinstatement or the payment of 6,812 euros in unpaid wages, plus another 45,200 as settlement, to which 10 percent of arrears would be added, was ordered.
Those responsible for the company alleged that they had been “extremely surprised” that the aforementioned gross salary had been attributed that had never been authorized, which they considered “a disloyalty” that caused a disproportion in the pharmacy accounts.
Other reasons for the dismissal were also alleged, such as a loss of 4,500 euros in medications that was not compensated by the insurance, that teleworking represented “a blatant abandonment” of their obligations and that they incurred various “abuse of trust.”
The TSJC concludes that someone appointed as a manager cannot take advantage of their faculties and powers to contract with themselves a significant salary increase that was neither justified nor authorized, which would be a “breach of trust.”
The Chamber believes that the complainant committed a “serious and culpable” breach of his obligations and of the required good faith and loyalty, which is why it is concluded that the dismissal is appropriate and the worker does not have the right to be compensated or collect unemployment benefits.
The contract signed at the time established that it was responsible for developing planning and taking actions to achieve annual objectives, everything related to hiring, setting schedules, vacations, control of registrations and cancellations, bank accounts and organization of material means, among others.
