Canceling the dismissal of an employee who gave a negative evaluation of his company on Google

The Supreme Court of Castilla-La Mancha reversed dismissal from the worker who placed on Google And negative review your company. In a ruling dated June 15, the higher court upheld the employee’s appeal against the previous ruling of the social court in Albacete, which sided with his employer, eiffageFrench group for construction and service concessions.

The worker, who joined the company in 2017 as an employee, had a controversy over work shifts in May 2022, which is why he published as many as 12 negative reviews about his company on Google. In one of them he stated that “The management of the company is disastrous, they do not care about the worker, bad working hours on holidays and weekends and at night and low pay… not recommended ». In the second, he added that “Saturdays are paid as an extra in almost all companies, but not here.” In short, it is not recommended.”

Eiffage justified the dismissal by claiming that the reviews were published during working hours, when the use of the phone for private purposes is not allowed. However, after examining the first-instance verdict, the higher court concludes that “there is not enough evidence that the plaintiff used the mobile phone for private use, that is, to perform examinations, during working hours”. And that is that, although he was seen outside the workplace using the phone, the judges understand that it could have been a break or a break, so they do not see this as a sufficient indication to conclude that he used a mobile phone during the working day.

In addition, they remember that the staff had to have a phone handy in case they received a wasap or a call with work instructions.

As for the criticism itself, the judgment points out that “The conclusion of an employment contract in no way means taking away the rights granted to the worker by the Constitution. as a citizen, including the right to freely disseminate thoughts, ideas and opinions. As long as “offensive, insulting or disturbing expressions or names are used that go beyond the right to criticize and clearly harm the honor of the person whose behavior or statements are criticized”, which is not respected in this particular case.

Although the first-instance verdict agreed with the company, understanding that the publication of these negative opinions on Google implies publicity and external dissemination of its criticism, “thus increasing the damage to the company”, the higher court did not share this argument, because it would entail “vetoing” the worker’s use of any which of the internet platforms. Therefore, without evaluating whether he is right in his protest, the judges limit themselves to verifying that the employee is “simply reacting to the actual situation”, without the use of offensive or insulting expressions, personal criticism or lack of respect, which they do not see as justification for dismissal .