Woman Loses Job After Reaching Office Well Before Start Time, Court Upholds Employer’s Stand
In an unusual twist on workplace discipline, a 22-year-old woman in Spain has lost her job simply for arriving too early. Employed by a logistics firm in Alicante, she routinely showed up between 6:45 am and 7:00 am despite her official start time being 7:30 am. After repeated requests to adhere to her contracted hours went unheeded, her employer dismissed her for misconduct. When she challenged the decision in court, judges sided with the company — citing repeated violation of workplace rules, not her eagerness, as the reason.
Colleagues and the company argued that arriving too early disrupted the workplace’s rhythm — there was no work to be done, no staff around to coordinate with, and no tasks assigned until the official start time. Over that period, she reportedly attempted to log in to the company’s system via the office app before even entering the building.
Eventually, the employer classified this behaviour as “serious misconduct” — leading to her dismissal.
Judges reviewed the history: multiple warnings, repeated documented violations (19 recorded occasions of early arrival after caution), and at times attempts to log in remotely before physical presence. The court concluded that the issue was not the fact that she came early — but that she consistently ignored express instructions, undermining managerial authority and breaching the implicit trust obligation.
As such, it ruled the dismissal lawful — citing disloyalty, breach of trust and refusal to follow workplace rules, as defined under Article 54 of the Spanish Workers’ Statute.
The repeated disregard of formal and informal warnings sparked frustration. That consistent defiance, rather than her enthusiasm, was cited as the root cause. The company maintained that it had neither promised extra remuneration nor allocated tasks before official hours, making her early arrival redundant at best — and disruptive at worst.
In many offices globally, early arrival is praised as a sign of dedication. Yet this case reveals the other side: when early arrival undermines established rules, employers may treat it as a liability. It raises broader questions about balancing employee enthusiasm and institutional discipline, especially in times when hybrid and flexible working arrangements are becoming more common.
For now, the ruling serves as a cautionary tale: even the earliest arrival cannot compensate for persistent disregard of clearly stated workplace norms.
Early Bird Gets Fired: Case Background
What seemed like dedication initially turned into a legal headache for a young Spanish employee. For nearly two years, she turned up at her workplace significantly before her shift was scheduled to begin. Her arrival, consistently 30–40 minutes before time, drew repeated warnings from the management. Despite verbal and written notices, she persisted with her early-morning routine.Colleagues and the company argued that arriving too early disrupted the workplace’s rhythm — there was no work to be done, no staff around to coordinate with, and no tasks assigned until the official start time. Over that period, she reportedly attempted to log in to the company’s system via the office app before even entering the building.
Eventually, the employer classified this behaviour as “serious misconduct” — leading to her dismissal.
Court Decision: Early Arrival ≠ Innocent Gesture
Unsurprisingly, the employee took the matter to the relevant labour court, hoping for a reversal of the decision. The case ended up in the Social Court of Alicante, where she argued that firing her on account of punctuality was unreasonable and unjust.Judges reviewed the history: multiple warnings, repeated documented violations (19 recorded occasions of early arrival after caution), and at times attempts to log in remotely before physical presence. The court concluded that the issue was not the fact that she came early — but that she consistently ignored express instructions, undermining managerial authority and breaching the implicit trust obligation.
As such, it ruled the dismissal lawful — citing disloyalty, breach of trust and refusal to follow workplace rules, as defined under Article 54 of the Spanish Workers’ Statute.
Employer Perspective: Rules, Discipline and Coordination
From the employer’s vantage point, the early-arrival pattern caused more harm than good. It disrupted team coordination and created confusion — especially on days when no other staff had yet arrived. The firm argued that having employees clock in before actual working hours with nothing to do interfered with operational protocols.The repeated disregard of formal and informal warnings sparked frustration. That consistent defiance, rather than her enthusiasm, was cited as the root cause. The company maintained that it had neither promised extra remuneration nor allocated tasks before official hours, making her early arrival redundant at best — and disruptive at worst.
What This Means: When Punctuality Isn’t Enough
This case underlines an unusual but important principle: in a work environment with well-defined rules, even good intentions can lead to disciplinary action if they violate those rules.- Clarity of workplace policy matters: Employers must clearly communicate permitted work hours, and make sure employees understand when attendance — and work — should begin.
- Compliance over enthusiasm: Regular attendance or eagerness doesn’t substitute for adherence to company guidelines.
- Team coordination and fairness: Early arrivals can inadvertently create imbalance, discomfort or logistical challenges for both employers and co-workers.
- Trust and workplace culture: Consistent disregard for instructions can erode trust, regardless of one’s intent.
Broader Debate: Work Culture, Flexibility — And Expectations
The verdict has sparked debate among labour experts, employees and online commentators. Some question whether strict adherence to fixed start times remains relevant in a world where flexibility and remote working are growing. Others argue that workplace regulations exist for a reason — to ensure equity, order and predictability for all.In many offices globally, early arrival is praised as a sign of dedication. Yet this case reveals the other side: when early arrival undermines established rules, employers may treat it as a liability. It raises broader questions about balancing employee enthusiasm and institutional discipline, especially in times when hybrid and flexible working arrangements are becoming more common.
For now, the ruling serves as a cautionary tale: even the earliest arrival cannot compensate for persistent disregard of clearly stated workplace norms.
Next Story