<\/p>\n
The scrutiny was intense; both his company vehicle and the tablet he was using were set up to track his movements throughout the day. What emerged from the detective’s observations were discrepancies between what the employee reported and what he was actually doing.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
A Demolishing Report for the Worker<\/h2>\n
After extensive monitoring across different locations in Galicia, the findings indicated that the worker exaggerated his productivity. For instance, reports showed that in \u00a0Vigo\u00a0, he claimed to have worked four hours and visited 12 doctors. However, the detective timed only \u00a090 minutes\u00a0 of actual activity. A similar pattern emerged in Ourense, where he spent an astonishing 45 minutes in a caf\u00e9 but reported visiting four doctors.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
In both \u00a0Pontevedra\u00a0 and \u00a0Ferrol\u00a0, these discrepancies continued, revealing much shorter hospital stay durations than what the employee had recorded in his logs.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Armed with this damning report, the company concluded that the worker had engaged in flagrant abuse of trust. Out of 51 reported visits, they determined he could have made “five at most,” leading them to terminate his employment.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Productivity Weighs More Than GPS<\/h2>\n
The case ultimately reached the higher courts, where the company’s argument spectacularly backfired. The worker’s defense did not focus solely on the hours spent physically present at hospitals but rather on the nature of his role and the productivity he demonstrated.<\/p>\n
According to the Superior Court of Justice of Galicia<\/a>, it was noteworthy that the same company had previously rewarded the worker with bonuses up to \u00a0\u20ac4,000\u00a0 for exemplary productivity. The judges concluded that the employee’s ability to efficiently conduct visits did not equate to laziness, indicating that such evaluations must consider the actual nature of the role, which a detective’s findings could fail to accurately capture.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The ruling confirmed the \u00a0unlawfulness\u00a0 of the dismissal and mandated the company either reinstate the employee or compensate him with over \u00a0\u20ac118,000\u00a0. Beyond the specifics of this case, it sparked a broader conversation around work evaluation methodologies. It suggests that, within a judicial context, the archaic method of tracking work hours and physical presence is becoming increasingly obsolete\u2014especially for roles based on autonomy and objectives.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n This scenario isn’t unique to this case; with the increasing \u00a0digitalization\u00a0 of workplaces, monitoring tools such as \u00a0Teams\u00a0 are also under scrutiny for tracking employee status. Companies are increasingly wary of remote workers, often monitoring their activities closely. Additionally, employees have adopted practices like “task masking,” especially among younger generations, who tailor their activities to avoid additional work while still appearing busy. It’s evident that evaluating employee performance solely based on hours rather than results may no longer be the most effective approach.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The strategies employed by the company in this scenario mirror those used by numerous other businesses, particularly to counteract potential fraudulent claims by employees. Such actions can be deemed legal under the Private Security Law<\/a>, which permits investigators to act on suspicions of fraud in workplace assessments.<\/p>\nA Pulse Between Two Work Models<\/h2>\n
![\"Help](\"https:\/\/teknomers.com\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/The-court-has-overturned-it.jpeg\"\/)
\n <\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\nTechniques to Avoid Time Control<\/h2>\n
This Is Not an Isolated Case<\/h2>\n