1. IMPROVEMENT concerning welfare benefits for orphans
Law 3/2019 of 1 March increases the welfare benefits available to orphans of victims of gender-related violence.
2. URGENT MEASURES TO improve the PROTECTION of Workers’ rights AND to prevent instability in EMPLOYMENT with regard to THE WORKING DAY
Royal Decree-Law 8/2019 of 8 March comprises a set of measures aimed at guaranteeing workers’ rights and preventing instability in employment with regard to the working day.
3.URGENT MEASURES TO GUARANTEE EQUAL TREATMENT AND OPPORTUNITIES BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN
Royal Decree-Law 6/2019 of 1 March comprises a set of measures aimed at guaranteeing equal treatment and opportunities between men and women in employment.
4. DIFFERENCE in duration of MATERNITY AND PATERNITY LEAVE is NOT DISCRIMINATORY
The Constitutional Court has held that the longer duration of maternity leave in comparison with paternity leave is not discriminatory.
5. Absence of discrimination between permanent and fixED-term workers in a collective redundancy
The Supreme Court has held that temporary fixed-term workers can be excluded from the calculation of numerical thresholds in a collective redundancy procedure. It has also confirmed that the difference in severance payments to which temporary and permanent workers are entitled is not discriminatory.
6. Compensation for asbestos EXPOSURE cannot be decreaseD on the GROUNDS that a WORKER has a TOBACCO addiction
The Supreme Court has held that damages for exposure to asbestos in the workplace cannot be decreased by 50% on the grounds that the worker smokes.
7. Validity of FIXed-TERM CONTRACTS IN the CONTACT CENTRe SECTOR
The Supreme Court has upheld the validity of temporary fixed-term contracts to cover new campaigns and services in the contact centre sector during their first six months owing to the accumulation of work or increased orders.
8. Persons making fOOD DELIVERieS classed as employees
A Spanish court has found that persons making food deliveries can be classed as employees rather than self-employed workers. As a result, it held that a company’s decision to terminate the services of one of its workers as a result of him exercising his right to strike was void.