The Social Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands (TSJC) has confirmed the disciplinary termination of a staff member at a hamburger restaurant in Santa Cruz de Tenerife for destroying receipts for orders collected from the parking area after claiming that the purchaser had departed, whilst retaining the cash.
As established by the surveillance footage, these incidents occurred on at least five separate occasions over a two-week period, resulting in “financial loss” for the establishment and a diminished level of trust in the employee.
The staff member consistently maintained that the allegations were false and contended that the company compelled him to reimburse from his own finances for beverages that were ordered but not delivered or billed, asserting he was merely following instructions, a claim that the company disputed.
The dismissal occurred on October 15, 2020, cited as “fraud, disloyalty and a breach of trust” due to incidents that transpired on September 8, 13, 16, 18, and 27 of the same year, during which the claimant collected cash for orders made from vehicles.
The TSJC deems it established that once clients exited the premises, the employee would proceed to cancel the receipts, justifying his actions by stating, “The car is not there,” while retaining the funds.
Security camera footage reveals how the employee collects cash for orders, delivers them, retains the receipt, and ultimately cancels the transactions.
The company decided to examine the security footage after noticing that receipts were being improperly cancelled and that vehicles seldom vacated the queue, especially if the payment had been processed.
Initially, it was determined that the termination was justified upon reviewing the images captured by the security cameras, which clearly showed the individual acting in the aforementioned manner at particular times.
The appellant contested a breach of the Data Protection Act, seeking to invalidate the company’s evidence based on the video surveillance footage, which he claimed was obtained without informing staff of the presence and positioning of the cameras.
The TSJC concluded that, although this requirement was indeed necessary, the argument had not been raised initially; on the contrary, it was the former employee who had previously requested access to the footage as evidence in his favour, which was subsequently denied.
However, the former employee was cleared of allegations concerning the retention of funds from the till, as discrepancies in the accounts were noted on several occasions.
