Mercadona worker fired for clocking in two minutes late in Spain

Two minutes late and a dismissal: the case that reopens the clocking-in debate

A Mercadona worker has been dismissed after clocking in a few minutes late three days in a row. The company considers it gross misconduct; the worker calls it an excuse. The case, which has been circulating on economics forums these days, has peine the old question: does the time it takes to change clothes or reach your workstation count as working time? The courts' answer is not unanimous and depends on the collective agreement, the type of task and whether the uniform is mandatory. What is clear is that time tracking has been a legal requirement since 2019 and that the Spanish Supreme Court's doctrine has established that time spent putting on work clothes does not count as effective working time, unless the collective agreement says otherwise.

The specific case: three clock-ins and a 14-page letter

The dismissal is based on three consecutive two-minute delays. The company has classified it as gross misconduct for indiscipline and breach of contractual good faith. The dismissal letter runs to 14 pages, suggesting the company has accumulated other kinds of evidence. In the debate, some point out that the real reason may be something else: the worker's age, his performance or a conflict with a new manager. It is also suggested that the worker may be forcing a dismissal in order to receive severance pay, although a disciplinary dismissal carries no severance.

The legal key: when does the working day start?

The Spanish Workers' Statute (the main labour law) does not precisely define when effective working time begins. Supreme Court case law has established that time spent putting on a uniform is not working time, unless the collective agreement includes it. In the metal industry, for example, work clothes are considered safety equipment and the worker must be ready at the official start time. In other sectors, such as nursing, workers must be changed by 08:00. The gradualist doctrine requires proportionality: a two-minute delay cannot be punished the same way as a full absence. Moreover, minor offences must be warned in writing before they can become serious ones.

The debate over time tracking and productivity

The case has reignited the controversy over time tracking and its impact on productivity. Some argue that workers want to be paid up to the very last minute and that this drags down companies' competitiveness. Others argue that companies break the law and that courts overturn many disciplinary dismissals. The reality is that time tracking has been mandatory since 2019 and non-compliance can lead to fines. The underlying question is whether time spent changing or moving around the workplace should count. The answer depends on the collective agreement and case law, and there is no single solution.

The closing: an open question

A dismissal over two minutes' delay raises the question of whether labour law protects the worker or, on the contrary, allows disproportionate dismissals. The answer is not simple. It depends on whether the collective agreement counts changing time as working time, whether the company issued prior warnings and whether the judge sees proportionality. Meanwhile, the case moves forward and the debate continues.