Mercadona worker fired after detectives uncover his secret during shifts

If you were earning more than €3,300 a month after tax, you might think you had found a job worth holding on to. Most people would probably think twice before doing anything that could put that salary at risk, particularly after spending more than two decades with the same employer.

Yet one Mercadona employee in Almería has now lost his job after more than 25 years with the supermarket chain, with the courts backing the company’s decision. What happened during his working hours was enough for the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Andalucía to reject his appeal and uphold the dismissal. The details of what investigators found make for a rather unusual workplace case.

Mercadona employee caught drinking beer at work

The employee worked as a coordinator at a Mercadona centre and was earning over €4,500 gross per month, which amounted to more than €3,300 net. He had been with the company for over 25 years when Mercadona began investigating his conduct following complaints about his behaviour, including alleged breaches of his working schedule, unexplained absences, his treatment of colleagues and concerns about alcohol consumption during working hours.

The supermarket brought in a private detective to monitor him during July 2024. What the investigation uncovered was then used as evidence in the disciplinary proceedings that resulted in his dismissal. According to the court judgment, the employee was seen taking 33cl cans of beer from his car and drinking them during working hours on July 9, 10, 22, 23 and 25. The repeated incidents became an important part of the case against him.

He left work and drove away

Another incidents was also particularly shocking, the employee was reportedly seen taking two cans of beer from the boot of his car where he seemed to be keeping his stash, and drinking them before getting into his own vehicle and driving away from the Mercadona car park. He did not return to work for the rest of his shift. On another occasion, the private detective reportedly observed him taking a portable cool box described as being full of beers to the car park. The court considered these incidents alongside the other evidence gathered during the investigation rather than treating them as isolated events.

There was also evidence relating to his whereabouts during scheduled working hours. On one afternoon when he was supposed to be working, the employee was reportedly seen leaving his home carrying a folding chair and dressed for the beach, before heading towards the port of Aguadulce. The surveillance evidence formed part of Mercadona’s case that the employee was repeatedly failing to meet his obligations during the hours for which he was being paid. The company eventually dismissed him on disciplinary grounds.

Why the court backed Mercadona

The employee challenged the decision, but the Juzgado de lo Social número 6 de Almería rejected his claim. He then appealed to the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Andalucía, which has now upheld the original ruling. The judgment is important because the dismissal was not based simply on the fact that the employee had consumed beer. The court assessed the overall pattern of behaviour, including drinking alcohol during working hours, leaving the workplace, driving away, failing to follow his working schedule and other breaches of his employment obligations.

The repeated nature of the incidents was also taken into account. The TSJA concluded that the disciplinary dismissal was procedent, meaning Mercadona had sufficient grounds to terminate his employment. There is also an important distinction in the case. The court did not establish that the employee was habitually drunk at work. Instead, its decision focused on the specific conduct that had been documented during the investigation.

More than 25 years with Mercadona ends

 The employee had taken his case through two levels of the Spanish courts, but the TSJA has now confirmed that the dismissal was justified. The decision means Mercadona’s disciplinary action remains in place, bringing the legal challenge over his dismissal to an end at this stage. For the employee, a career lasting more than two decades has ended over a series of incidents documented while he was supposed to be working.

For Mercadona, the ruling confirms that the evidence gathered during the investigation was sufficient to justify the disciplinary action. The case also shows why the circumstances surrounding workplace misconduct matter. The court was not asked to decide whether having a beer during a working day should automatically cost someone their job. It considered a repeated pattern involving alcohol consumption, absences, leaving work and failing to comply with working hours.