Primark assistant manager sacked after secretly hiding discounted clothes from shoppers

If you have ever gone into Primark during the sales and wondered where all the best bargains have gone, one store in Melilla may have had an unusual explanation. A supervisor was allegedly hiding newly reduced clothes and homeware around the shop so she could buy them herself later, rather than letting customers get their hands on them. The woman had been working for the retailer since 2016, but her own shopping arrangements eventually landed her in trouble with her employer, and a Spanish court has now backed the decision to dismiss her.

The assistant manager worked at Primark’s store in the Parque Melilla shopping centre. The court heard that she had been keeping discounted merchandise out of customers’ reach and allowing other workers to do the same. The practice came to light in February, while the store director was on holiday. Two team managers raised concerns with the personnel manager after hearing reports that goods marked down in additional reductions, known internally as ‘Furthers’, were being put aside instead of being returned to the shop floor.

Hidden bargains in the shop

According to evidence considered by the court, the products were tucked away in less visible parts of the store, including the fitting rooms. Staff could then buy them during their breaks or after finishing work. One team manager said a colleague had admitted hiding products alongside the assistant manager and members of the external cleaning team. Another said she had heard the supervisor explaining to a sales assistant how to conceal items. When she realised she was being overheard, the supervisor reportedly added: “But I haven’t told you anything.”

There was another telling exchange on February 2. A team manager saw the assistant manager searching among sheets and pillows on a display bed. She reportedly complained: “They always take the things I put aside.” The court also considered an electronic record of a purchase made five days later. The employee clocked out for her break at 10.02am on February 7 and, five minutes later, bought ten items for €35.80 using her staff number. She clocked back in at 10.21am. On the same day, external cleaning staff were found putting reduced items in the fitting rooms. They said the assistant manager had given them permission.

Primark rules expressly prohibited it

The company’s Welcome Handbook, given to employees when they join, specifically bans reserving merchandise for personal use or for other people. The rule applied even if staff intended to pay for the goods later therefore Primark dismissed the assistant manager. The disciplinary letter accused her of seriously failing to fulfil her responsibilities, disobeying workplace rules and breaching the trust and good faith expected of an employee.

She challenged the dismissal in court. Juzgado Social No. 1 in Melilla rejected her claim on October 29 2025, finding that the allegations were supported by the two team managers’ evidence, staff purchase and clocking records, and the company handbook. The employee then appealed to the High Court of Justice of Andalucía (TSJA), arguing that the evidence did not justify the decision to sack her.

Judges uphold the dismissal

In its ruling of September 28, 2026, the TSJA rejected the appeal and confirmed that the dismissal was justified. The judges agreed that the assistant manager had deliberately kept discounted goods from customers so she could obtain them for herself, while also allowing cleaning staff to reserve products. Her senior position counted against her. Rather than ensuring company procedures were followed, she had used her authority to permit the very conduct she was expected to prevent.

The court also rejected the argument that dismissal was too severe because the items involved were of relatively low value. In cases involving a serious breach of trust or good faith, the judges said, the decisive issue is the loss of confidence between employer and employee, not simply the financial value of the goods. The ruling leaves Primark’s decision in place. The case was an employment dispute, not a criminal prosecution, and the court’s decision concerns whether the company had grounds to dismiss the employee.