Carrefour worker buys cakes for his colleagues to mark his birthday and ends up fired: he must now be reinstated or compensated with 105,000 euros

The High Court of Justice of Galicia has upheld the decision of the social court of Vigo, ordering Carrefour to either reinstate a former worker or compensate him with 105,716.09 euros for an unfair dismissal following a receipt error.

On the day of his birthday back in 2023 - 4 October - the worker, who had been at the company since 1992, bought several types of cakes from the chain's bakery as a gesture to his colleagues and to celebrate the occasion. The cakes were put on trays around the shop before it opened so that the other workers could help themselves to them before the supermarket opened at 9am.

The total cost was 68.82 euros, but the employee at the bakery section charged him 10.23 euros. He paid without using his employee discount code. On 16 October, he paid the outstanding amount and sent an email informing of the payment and asking that the other worker is not punished for the "human error". According to the court resolution, that was not the first time that the company or employees had treated with food the staff outside the opening hours.

Although it seemed that the matter had been settled, the worker was dismissed on 14 November 2023 - the day when he requested from the company an extension of an adapted work schedule "for reasons related to eye health that recommended relative rest in situations of strain and visual fatigue". He was informed of the dismissal with a letter.

The High Court of Justice of Galicia has confirmed that the dismissal of the worker was unjustified. According to the ruling, the incident was caused by a joint error, for which both the bakery employee and the complainant were guilty - the latter for his negligence. However, the worker did pay the difference as soon as he was aware of the mistake and his email demonstrated that he had had no "intention to defraud the company of money or pay less for the products consumed". The court concludes that the worker did not deserve the "sanction of dismissal" and that the company "has not been able to prove malice in his behaviour".