Social Court Number 2 of Pamplona declared the dismissal of a hospitality worker unfair after she called her employer a usurer during a wage dispute. Ruling number 179/2021, issued on May 24, 2021, ordered the company to either reinstate the employee or pay her 2,872 euros in compensation.
The incident took place on January 12, 2020, when the employee and the business owner began arguing over unpaid overtime. The discussion started in a normal tone but grew heated, leading the employer to invite the worker into the kitchen so as not to disturb customers.
Inside the kitchen, both women continued shouting. The employee called her boss a usurer, while the owner admitted using expressions such as trouble-maker. When the owner heard further shouting from the dining room, she returned and placed her hand over the worker's mouth to try to silence her.
Escalation and Criminal Proceedings
Feeling assaulted, the employee called the police and reported her employer for an alleged blow to the face. The business owner also filed a police report and issued a disciplinary dismissal letter several days later. The letter accused the worker of indiscipline, verbal offenses, false accusations, and abandoning her post.
The employee went on sick leave for anxiety and took the case to criminal court. She stated that her boss confronted her, yelled, insulted her, and slapped her face. An investigating court acquitted the employer of assault, though it noted the employee's mental health leave and confirmed that both parties had exchanged insults and shouting.
During the labor trial, the employer acknowledged that what truly offended her was not the insults, but the call to the police and the impact on her business image in front of customers. Witness testimony established that customers could not see the police arrive. Witnesses also confirmed that the owner contributed to the poor image by raising her voice, and one witness testified that the owner had warned the employee she would be fired if she filed a police complaint.
Court Assessment and Verdict
The magistrate applied legal doctrine requiring judges to evaluate specific circumstances before imposing the most severe disciplinary sanction. The ruling stressed that verbal offenses do not automatically justify termination, particularly in a high-tension environment involving an anxiety attack and an underlying dispute over unpaid overtime.
The judge determined that the worker left her post as a direct result of an anxiety attack rather than voluntary disobedience. While describing the employee's conduct as reproachable, the court concluded that it did not reach the level of severity required to terminate her contract.
The ruling highlighted that the owner focused on the police call and reputation rather than the verbal insults, yet that damage could not be blamed solely on the employee. The court declared the dismissal unfair and ordered the business to either reinstate the worker with back pay for lost wages since her firing or pay her 2,872 euros in compensation.
