Court Upholds Dismissal for 21 Hours on Social Media at Work. In the Canary Islands, a court upheld the dismissal of an employee who spent over 21 hours on Instagram and WhatsApp during working hours. The company provided evidence of the violations, and the court found no grounds for compensation.
An employee of a cleaning company in the Canary Islands was dismissed after management discovered that, over three months, she spent more than 21 hours of work time on personal messages and social networks. According to the decision, the employer had previously imposed a strict ban on the use of mobile phones during working hours, except in emergency situations.
During an internal investigation, the company recorded that the employee regularly used Instagram and WhatsApp directly at her workplace. Over three months, 21 hours and 41 minutes of personal phone activity were logged. As evidence, screenshots, posts, and other documents confirming the violations were provided.
The dismissal letter also cited other disciplinary offenses: regular tardiness and unauthorized absences from the workplace for more than 10 minutes. However, the key argument was the systematic and prolonged personal surfing on the internet in defiance of the direct ban.
Court’s position
The employee tried to challenge the dismissal, arguing that phone use was common practice and allegedly did not raise any concerns. However, the court rejected these arguments: in the magistrates’ view, the ban had been clearly communicated to staff, and the violations were consistent. The court noted that the employee’s actions undermined trust and violated workplace discipline.
As a result, the dismissal was found to be lawful, and her right to compensation or reinstatement was denied.
When is a phone ban lawful
Spanish labor law allows the restriction or complete ban on the use of personal gadgets during working hours if justified by operational needs, security concerns, or data protection. However, such measures must be announced in advance, must not infringe on fundamental rights, and must be proportionate.
An employer is not entitled to access the contents of a personal phone without the employee’s consent. In addition, restrictions must not affect rights related to union activities or already established labor guarantees.
As lawyers note, courts do not always side with the employer: if the ban was not clearly defined or communicated to employees, dismissal over phone use may be ruled unlawful.
Context and significance
This case highlights that even in everyday matters, such as smartphone use, violating corporate policies can have serious consequences. For employers, it is important to document such bans in advance and in writing, while employees should be aware of the risks and comply with internal regulations.
