The High Court of Justice of the Canary Islands has dismissed the appeal filed by a cook at the Ocean Beach Club Hotel against the ruling that had previously denied her request for severance pay. The court decision confirms that an isolated argument and physical altercation between employees, without prior incident or knowledge on the part of the company, does not constitute a serious breach of workplace safety regulations, provided that management acts diligently after learning of the events.
The Labor Chamber, relying on recent Supreme Court jurisprudence, reiterated that to claim severance pay due to the employer's fault, it is essential to demonstrate inaction or a serious and direct breach of contract by the employer. In this case, given that it was a completely unforeseeable, isolated incident with no prior record of hostility known to management, the company was exempt from negligence in supervision, having scrupulously fulfilled its obligations by immediately sanctioning the responsible party. Furthermore, the court dismissed the appellant's arguments, noting that, as a result of the incident, the employee experienced a series of periods of sick leave that effectively prevented her from continuing to work alongside the sanctioned employee, thus fully upholding the acquittal of both the company and the Wage Guarantee Fund (FOGASA).
The conflict originated at the hotel complex in southern Gran Canaria when the plaintiff's supervisor approached her aggressively in the kitchen, using derogatory language and shoving her in the shoulder in a clear abuse of power. Following the altercation, the employee went to the emergency room of a hospital and filed a complaint with the Civil Guard, which led to criminal proceedings. The investigating judge issued an acquittal on the minor charge.
In the strictly professional sphere, the company's response was immediate, opening an internal investigation that concluded with the aggressor receiving a seven-day suspension without pay. However, the employee pursued legal action, requesting severance pay and compensation for the termination of her employment under Article 50.1.c of the Workers' Statute. She argued that her fundamental rights to physical and moral integrity had been violated and that the imposed sanction was insufficient, as it theoretically forced her to continue sharing a workspace with her aggressor.
