1. THE OBLIGATION Of Companies TO RECORD THE DAILY WORKING TIME OF EACH WORKER
In its judgment of 14 May 2019 (C-55/18), the Court of Justice of the European Union has concluded that the interpretation in domestic case law of a Member State’s legislation that employers are not obliged to set up a system for calculating the daily working time of each worker is contrary to European Union law.
2. The prolonged inactivity of an official constitutes workplace harassment
Constitutional Court ruling 56/2019 of 10 June (writ for constitutional relief 901/2018) has declared that the creation of a job position that is exclusively formal and devoid of actual functions and, subsequently, maintaining an official inactive at work for a prolonged period of time constitutes workplace harassment, which infringes the right to moral integrity of article 15 of the Spanish Constitution.
3. Exercise of the option to cede a portion of maternity leave after the initial request for recognition of the maternity benefit
In judgment 864/2018 of 26 September (cassation appeal 1352/2017), the Supreme Court considered that a worker who exercises the right to suspend her employment contract because of childbirth and who applies to the National Institute of Social Security for recognition of the maternity benefit may, subsequent to her application, assign part of that rest period following childbirth to the other parent, who will be entitled to receive the corresponding maternity benefit deriving from that assignment.
4. In a 40-year-old contract the interruption of the relationship for A MERE two months is insignificant
Supreme Court ruling 156/2019 of 28 February (appeal for unification of doctrine 2768/2017) considered that the principle of essential unity of the relationship is not infringed when, in a 40-year-old contract, the interruption is insignificant in view of the short period of time during which the services are not provided to the company. Therefore, this interruption does not affect the calculation of the seniority of the employee.
5. If the person in charge recklessly fails to comply with the risk-prevention regulations, the company is not liable for the subordinate’s accident
In judgment 149/2019 of 28 February (appeal for unification of doctrine 508/2017), the Supreme Court declared that it is inappropriate to impose a penalty on a company for lack of safety measures in a case where it was proved that the injuries suffered by the worker were due exclusively to the recklessness of the manager leading the team, which was difficult for the employer to foresee.
6. Financial compensation for holidays not taken during a period of temporary incapacity following recognition of total permanent incapacity to carry out the worker’s usual occupation
Supreme Court ruling 220/2019 of 14 March (appeal for unification of doctrine 466/2017) declared that a worker has the right to obtain financial compensation for holidays not taken during a period of temporary incapacity when the employment contract terminated after a declaration of total permanent incapacity to carry out the worker’s usual profession applicable prior to the date set for the in natura enjoyment of the holiday period.
7. Provision in a collective agreement establishing that business events with CLIENTS outside of the working day count as working time
In judgment 229/2019 of 19 March (cassation appeal 30/2018), the Supreme Court considered that, as a consequence of the provision on this included in the applicable collective agreement, hours dedicated by employees to promotional activities of a social nature with clients and, in general, any type of special event outside the working day counts as working time and, therefore, must respect the limits provided in article 34.3 of the Workers’ Statute.
8. Regulation by collective agreement of the termination of contracts for specific work or a service resulting from a reduction in the volume of the contract
Supreme Court ruling 283/2019 of 4 April (cassation appeal 165/2018) declared that collective agreements cannot regulate the termination of contracts for specific work or a service under grounds other than those provided for in article 49 of the Workers’ Statute, which does not contemplate cases where there is a real decrease in the volume of the contracted work or service as grounds for termination. This circumstance falls under articles 51 and 52 of the Workers’ Statute, as dismissal for objective reasons.
9. AN ACCIDENT suffered by a worker who DEVIATED FROM HER NORMAL ROUTE TO WORK to leave her child at ITS grandparents’ house on a non-school day WAS CONSIDERED AN ACCIDENT DURING HER COMMUTE
In judgment 112/2019 of 15 January (appeal 2505/2018), the High Court of Justice of the Basque Country established that an accident suffered by a worker who deviated from her usual journey to her workplace to leave her child, who was on holiday, at its grandparents’ house, qualified as an accident during her commute to work, insofar as the deviation was due to the need to balance her work and family life.
10. The gender perspective in the calculation of compensation for moral damage derived from AN unfounded denial of a worker’s request for a specific timetable.
In judgment 252/2019 of 12 March (appeal 1596/2018), the High Court of Justice of the Canary Islands upheld compensation for moral damage to a worker who was unjustifiably and unreasonably denied her request for a specific timetable in order to balance her family and work life. The recognition of this compensation had to take into account the gender perspective since the denial of specific time to care for a minor can lead to indirect discrimination against working women, as they are the individuals who mostly carry it out.
|
