When an Internal Benefit Becomes a Disciplinary Risk
Employee benefits and internal discounts form part of the remuneration policies of many companies. Employee discounts, corporate cards, vouchers, internal credits, loyalty applications or benefits linked to seniority can be valuable tools to strengthen employee engagement and improve the workplace experience.
However, these benefits may also create legal risks when they are not used in accordance with internal company policies. This is particularly relevant when such benefits are personal, non-transferable and linked to individual credentials.
Judgment No. 320/2026 of the High Court of Justice of the Balearic Islands, dated 1 July 2026, analyses a particularly illustrative case. A Starbucks supervisor was subject to disciplinary dismissal after using a colleague’s employee discount and stored-value card while that colleague was on medical leave.
The financial impact was limited. The total estimated loss was approximately €42. However, the Court confirmed the validity of the dismissal. The key factor was not the amount involved, but rather the repeated nature of the conduct, the use of another person’s credentials and the breakdown of the trust relationship between the company and the employee.
Background of the Case
The employee worked for Starbucks Coffee España, S.L. under an indefinite part-time employment contract. Initially hired as a barista, from 21 February 2020 onwards he held the professional classification of Shift Supervisor.
This aspect was particularly relevant. The employee was not merely an operational member of staff. He held organisational responsibilities within the store structure, positioned below the Store Manager and above the barista team.
The company notified him of his disciplinary dismissal on 25 May 2023. The dismissal letter alleged very serious breaches, including failure to comply with company instructions, fraud, abuse of trust and breach of contractual good faith.
The investigation began after the district manager detected an unusually high volume of employee discounts being applied in the store. Following this review, the company analysed internal transactions and relied on CCTV information and transaction records.
The Benefit Used: 50% Employee Discount and Stored-Value Card
Employees within the group were entitled to a 50% discount in company restaurants. This discount was managed through the Club Vips application and required individual identification.
In addition, certain employees with seniority prior to 1 January 2018 had access to a stored-value card. This benefit allowed them to pay for company products using a balance previously loaded by the company.
Both benefits shared an essential characteristic: they were personal and non-transferable.
To apply the discount, employees had to access the application, identify themselves using their ID number and personal password, and generate a single-use QR code. Afterwards, the payment method could be selected, including the stored-value card where applicable.
The internal policy also established that the person applying the discount and the person processing the payment should not be the same individual.
The dismissed employee was not entitled to the stored-value card. Nevertheless, he used a colleague’s QR code and stored-value card.
The Conduct Alleged by the Company
The dismissal letter described several transactions carried out between 31 March and 11 April 2023.
According to the company, the employee used his colleague’s employee discount and paid the remaining amount using that same colleague’s stored-value card. The company argued that the colleague was on medical leave during that period and was not present in the stores.
The dismissal letter detailed nine transactions. In some cases, the employee had also applied the discount to himself from his own till, breaching the internal rule prohibiting self-processing.
The company considered that this conduct amounted to identity misuse, fraudulent use of personal and non-transferable benefits and a serious breach of the trust placed in the employee.
The Internal Policy and Employee Awareness
The company argued that the employee was fully aware of the internal policy governing the use of these benefits.
The information regarding the use of the employee discount and stored-value card was available through the company’s internal platform, “Actívate”. It had also been communicated through weekly internal communications known as “ristrettos”.
Furthermore, the company’s Code of Ethics, which had been accepted by the employee, established obligations regarding honesty, integrity and compliance, and prohibited any conduct that could constitute fraud against the company.
This point was particularly relevant in rejecting any possible defence based on lack of knowledge. The system required an individual username, password and QR code. Therefore, the Court considered that the employee knew that he was using another person’s credentials and benefits.
The Employee’s Claim
The employee challenged the dismissal. His main request was for the disciplinary dismissal to be declared unfair.
He denied the accuracy of the facts attributed to him. He also argued that the alleged misconduct had become time-barred because the company had taken too long to impose the disciplinary sanction after becoming aware of the facts.
Additionally, he argued that, even if the conduct had occurred, it should be classified as a serious offence rather than a very serious offence. In support of this argument, he highlighted that there had been no significant financial loss for the company.
The employee also claimed that he had received authorisation from his manager to use the stored-value card as compensation for the additional responsibilities he had assumed while his colleague was on medical leave.
Finally, he also claimed amounts allegedly owed for holidays and public holidays worked.
The Labour Court’s Decision
Labour Court No. 6 of Palma dismissed the employee’s claim.
The judgment declared the disciplinary dismissal communicated on 25 May 2023 to be fair. It considered that the irregular transactions had been proven and that the employee’s conduct constituted a breach of contractual good faith and an abuse of trust.
The Court also rejected the employee’s claim regarding outstanding amounts for holidays and public holidays. After reviewing working time records, certificates and the final settlement, it concluded that no outstanding amounts were owed.
The employee appealed before the High Court of Justice of the Balearic Islands.
The Issue of Limitation Periods
One of the main arguments raised in the appeal concerned the limitation period applicable to the misconduct.
The employee argued that the conduct should be classified as a serious offence. In that case, the limitation period would have been 20 days.
Since the company became aware of the facts on 12 April 2023 and the dismissal was notified on 25 May 2023, 43 days had elapsed. Therefore, according to the employee, the disciplinary sanction would have been time-barred.
The company argued the opposite. It maintained that the conduct constituted a very serious offence due to its repeated nature, fraudulent elements, disloyalty and abuse of trust.
Consequently, the applicable limitation period was 60 days.
The High Court of Justice confirms the approach adopted by both the company and the first-instance court.
The conduct could not be considered an isolated incident or a minor irregularity. There were nine transactions over six working days, the employee used another person’s credentials and breached known internal policies.
Therefore, as the conduct constituted a very serious offence, the applicable limitation period was 60 days from the date on which the company became aware of the misconduct. Between 12 April and 25 May, only 43 days had elapsed.
The disciplinary sanction was therefore imposed within the legal deadline.
Why the Misconduct Was Considered Very Serious
The Court highlights two particularly relevant factors.
First, the repeated nature of the conduct. This was not a single transaction or an isolated mistake. The employee carried out nine transactions using the QR code and stored-value card of a colleague who was on medical leave.
Second, the clear breach of internal company rules. The discounts were personal and non-transferable. In addition, the employee held a supervisory position, which reinforced his obligations regarding trust, control and compliance with company policies.
The judgment classifies the conduct as a breach of contractual good faith and abuse of trust under Article 54.2(d) of the Spanish Workers’ Statute.
It also connects the behaviour with the disciplinary regime applicable to the hospitality sector, which considers fraud, disloyalty and abuse of trust as serious breaches.
However, the Court clarifies that the misuse of any type of discount would not automatically justify dismissal. The specific circumstances must be analysed, particularly the repeated nature of the conduct and the impact on the trust relationship.
The Financial Amount Does Not Determine the Case
One of the most interesting aspects of the judgment is how it addresses the economic impact of the conduct.
The employee argued that the damage caused was limited, approximately €42. From his perspective, dismissal was a disproportionate response.
However, the High Court rejected this argument.
The essence of the breach was not the amount of the financial loss. It was the deliberate conduct involving deception, misuse of another employee’s identity and the improper use of personal and non-transferable benefits.
The judgment recalls that the absence of significant financial damage, or the limited amount involved, does not justify conduct that breaches contractual good faith.
The decisive factor is the employee’s conscious and improper behaviour.
This approach is particularly relevant for companies. In disciplinary matters, certain breaches are not assessed solely according to their immediate economic impact. They must also be evaluated according to what they reveal about the level of trust required within the employment relationship.
Loss of Trust as Grounds for Dismissal
The employment relationship requires good faith, loyalty and honest behaviour.
These obligations become particularly important when the employee holds a position of responsibility.
In this case, the employee was a Shift Supervisor and formed part of the store’s management structure. Therefore, the company was entitled to expect a higher level of compliance with internal rules.
The High Court considers that the conduct destroyed the necessary trust required to maintain the employment relationship.
Using another person’s credentials to obtain a benefit is not merely an administrative irregularity. It directly affects the principle of contractual good faith.
Furthermore, the repeated nature of the conduct prevented it from being treated as an isolated mistake. The behaviour occurred over several days and involved multiple transactions.
This continuity reinforced the seriousness of the breach.
The Employee’s Alleged Authorisation from the Colleague
The employee argued that he had received authorisation from his supervisor or colleague to use the stored-value card.
The Court rejected the argument that such alleged authorisation could make the conduct valid from the company’s perspective.
The benefits were personal and non-transferable. Their use depended on individual credentials and on internal company policies that were known to employees.
Therefore, any private agreement or authorisation between colleagues could not make lawful the use of a benefit to which the employee was not entitled.
This point is particularly relevant for companies. When an internal benefit is expressly defined as personal and non-transferable, informal transfers between employees may still constitute a disciplinary breach, even if the person who owns the benefit has consented.
Evidence of the Facts
The employee also argued that the facts had not been sufficiently proven, claiming that the company had not provided the CCTV recordings referred to in the dismissal letter.
The High Court rejected this argument.
The authorship and reality of the conduct were sufficiently established through transaction records, employee certificates and witness statements from the district manager and the Store Manager.
The first-instance judgment considered those witness statements credible due to their consistency and reliability.
Furthermore, the company provided documentation detailing dates, times and movements associated with the transactions under investigation.
Therefore, the absence of the CCTV recordings themselves did not prevent the facts from being considered proven. The evidence provided was sufficient to confirm the employee’s conduct.
The Principle of In Dubio Pro Operario Does Not Apply Without Genuine Doubt
The employee also invoked the principle of in dubio pro operario, arguing that there were doubts regarding whether his colleague had consented to the use of the benefit.
The High Court rejected this argument as well.
This principle only applies where there is a persistent and unavoidable doubt regarding the interpretation of facts or legal provisions.
In this case, the factual situation was considered clear. The employee carried out the transactions using another person’s identity and benefits.
Furthermore, the proven facts established that, during the relevant period, the colleague was on medical leave and that the transactions had been carried out by the dismissed employee.
Therefore, there was no genuine doubt that had to be resolved in the employee’s favour.
The Proportionality of the Dismissal
The High Court confirms that the disciplinary dismissal was proportionate.
According to the Court, several factors reinforced the seriousness of the conduct.
First, the behaviour was repeated. There were nine transactions carried out over six working days.
Second, the employee used another person’s credentials. This meant accessing a benefit that belonged exclusively to another employee.
Third, the benefit was personal and non-transferable. The employee knew, or should have known, this limitation.
Fourth, the employee held a supervisory position. Therefore, his role required a higher level of responsibility, loyalty and compliance with internal company policies.
Fifth, the conduct directly affected contractual good faith. The company is not required to maintain an employment relationship when trust has been consciously and repeatedly breached.
Decision of the High Court of Justice of the Balearic Islands
The High Court of Justice of the Balearic Islands dismissed the employee’s appeal.
The Court confirmed the judgment of Labour Court No. 6 of Palma and upheld the validity of the disciplinary dismissal.
As a result, the employment relationship was considered validly terminated on the date of dismissal, with no entitlement to compensation for unfair dismissal.
The judgment confirms that the improper use of internal benefits, when it involves fraud, misuse of identity or abuse of trust, may justify disciplinary dismissal even where the financial loss is limited.
The Key Legal Principle of the Judgment
The judgment establishes a clear principle: in cases involving breach of contractual good faith, the financial amount involved is not always the decisive factor.
Deliberate, repeated conduct that violates known internal company rules may justify disciplinary dismissal. This is particularly true where the conduct involves personal and non-transferable benefits and where the employee occupies a position of trust.
Therefore, the analysis should not focus exclusively on whether the financial impact was €42, €400 or €4,000.
The relevant question is different: whether the employee’s conduct has damaged the trust relationship required to maintain employment.
In this case, the Court concluded that it had.
Practical Impact for Companies
The judgment provides several important lessons for companies managing internal benefits, cards, discounts or digital tools.
First, internal policies must be clear. If a benefit is personal and non-transferable, this must be expressly stated.
Second, companies must be able to prove that these policies were properly communicated. Internal platforms, periodic communications, training sessions or acceptance of a Code of Ethics may become relevant evidence.
Third, technological systems should provide traceability. Transaction records, user identification, timestamps and payment records can become decisive evidence in judicial proceedings.
Fourth, companies must act within the applicable deadlines. Internal investigations should properly document when the company became aware of the facts and when the disciplinary measure was communicated.
Finally, proportionality must be assessed beyond the financial impact. Trust, repetition, the employee’s position and intent are key elements when evaluating disciplinary action.
Impact for Human Resources Departments
For Human Resources departments, this judgment is particularly relevant because it connects three important areas: internal benefits policies, disciplinary procedures and judicial evidence.
Internal benefits should not be managed as informal advantages. They should be incorporated into documented policies that are accessible to employees and aligned with the company’s Code of Ethics.
Furthermore, when irregular use is detected, the company should conduct a structured investigation. It is advisable to identify the transactions involved, review records, preserve evidence and hear the individuals concerned before adopting disciplinary measures.
Companies should also review whether previous informal practices or tolerance could weaken their position. If an organisation intends to sanction improper use of a benefit, it must have applied its own rules consistently.
Good Practices for Companies
This judgment allows several practical recommendations to be identified.
The first is to clearly define who may use each benefit and under what conditions.
The second is to expressly prohibit the use of another person’s credentials, cards or codes.
The third is to prevent systems that allow self-processing when a benefit requires validation by another person.
The fourth is to maintain traceable and auditable digital records.
The fifth is to reinforce the obligations of supervisors, managers and team leaders, as their positions involve a higher level of trust.
The sixth is to train employees on the correct use of discounts, cards and corporate applications.
The seventh is to properly document internal investigations before communicating a disciplinary dismissal.
The Financial Amount May Be Low, but Trust Can Still Be Broken
Judgment No. 320/2026 of the High Court of Justice of the Balearic Islands confirms the validity of the disciplinary dismissal of a supervisor who repeatedly used a colleague’s employee discount and stored-value card.
Although the financial loss was limited, the Court considered that the conduct involved fraud, abuse of trust and breach of contractual good faith.
The repeated nature of the conduct, the use of another employee’s credentials, the supervisory position held by the employee and the knowledge of internal policies justified the maximum disciplinary sanction.
For companies, the lesson is clear: internal benefits must be properly regulated, communicated and monitored.
For employees, the judgment confirms that the misuse of another person’s discount or corporate benefit may have serious disciplinary consequences, even where the financial amount appears limited.
At Suárez de Vivero, we advise companies, international groups and Human Resources departments on internal policies, Codes of Ethics, workplace investigations, disciplinary dismissals, labour compliance and judicial defence in employment proceedings.
Frequently Asked Questions About Disciplinary Dismissal and Misuse of Employee Discounts
Can a company dismiss an employee for using another employee’s discount?
Yes, if the discount is personal and non-transferable and the misuse involves fraud, abuse of trust or a breach of contractual good faith.
Does the limited financial impact matter?
It may be relevant, but it is not always decisive. In cases involving breach of trust, the employee’s conduct, repetition and disloyalty may be more important than the financial amount.
What happens if the colleague authorised the use of the discount?
Private authorisation between employees does not necessarily make the conduct valid from the company’s perspective. If the internal policy establishes that the benefit is personal and non-transferable, the transfer may still constitute misconduct.
What limitation period applies for very serious offences?
Article 60.2 of the Spanish Workers’ Statute establishes a limitation period of 60 days from the date on which the company becomes aware of the misconduct and, in any event, six months from the date it was committed.
What is the difference between a serious and a very serious offence?
It depends on the conduct, the applicable collective agreement and the circumstances of the case. Repetition, fraud, disloyalty and abuse of trust usually support classification as a very serious offence.
Is CCTV evidence mandatory to prove the facts?
No. Companies may prove the facts through other evidence, such as transaction records, internal documentation and consistent witness statements.
How can companies protect their internal benefits?
They should regulate them in writing, communicate the rules clearly, train employees, maintain digital traceability and apply consistent disciplinary criteria.
Do supervisors have a higher duty of trust?
Yes. Employees with supervisory or management responsibilities are generally subject to higher standards of good faith, loyalty and compliance with internal company rules.