1. THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION PREVENTS HOST MEMBER STATE FROM UNILATERALLY DISREGARDING THE EFFECTS OF AN E101 CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY ANOTHER MEMBER STATE
Judgment of the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 2 April 2020
In the context of two proceedings regarding the validity of E101 certificates issued by the Spanish labour authorities for the employees of a Spanish airline working in a French airport, the Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled that, in the absence of contradictory proceedings with the Member State that issued the certificates —in this case Spain— the courts of France, as the host Member State, cannot declare that the certificates were issued fraudulently and unilaterally disregard them. The Court of Justice of the European Union also ruled on whether the res judicata effect in criminal proceedings can allow a court of the host Member State to hold the employer liable for damages in connection with the fraudulent certificates.
2. THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION RULES AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT MUST BE DIVIDED WHEN THERE ARE SEVERAL TRANSFEREES IN A TRANSFER OF AN UNDERTAKING
Judgment of the Labour Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 26 March 2020
The Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled that, in the context of a transfer of undertaking, a contract must be divided in proportion to the tasks performed by a worker for each of the transferees in such a way that a balance is struck between safeguarding the worker’s rights and employment conditions and protecting the interests of the transferees, which retain control over the organisation of their business activities. The Court of Justice of the European Union stated that the referring court must take into account the practical implications of dividing the contract, and the transferee(s) are responsible for any consequent termination of the employment contract, even if the termination is initiated by the worker, when it is impossible to divide the contract or to do so would adversely affect the worker’s rights and employment conditions.
3. SUPREME COURT RULES THAT THE SEVERANCE PAYMENT APPLICABLE WHEN A RELIEF CONTRACT IS TERMINATED VALIDLY IS 11 DAYS OF SALARY PER YEAR WORKED
Judgment of the Labour Chamber of the Spanish Supreme Court of 12 February 2020
The Supreme Court has held that the severance payment payable when a relief contract is terminated validly is not the same as for an objective dismissal, i.e. 20 days of salary per year worked. The Supreme Court pointed out that this type of contract has its own severance payment regime and held that, in the case before it in which the worker was hired in February 2014, the amount payable was 11 days of salary per year worked based on the eighth transitory provision of the Statute of Workers.
4. NATIONAL COURT DECLARES THAT THE ENTERING INTO FORCE OF ROYAL DECREE-LAW 6/2019 DOES NOT MEAN THAT LEAVE FOR THE BIRTH OF A CHILD REGULATED IN A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT IS LOST
Judgment of the Labour Chamber of the Spanish National Court of 5 March 2020
In two joined proceedings on collective disputes in the same company, the National Court has held that entitlement to paid leave for the birth of a child regulated in a collective bargaining agreement was not automatically lost with the entry into force of Royal Decree-Law 6/2019 of 1 March on urgent measures to guarantee the equal treatment of women and men in employment and occupation. It ordered the company to acknowledge this right with retroactive effect to 8 March 2019. The National Court also held that this leave can be taken once the suspension of the employment contract according to article 48.4 of the Statute of Workers ends, and that this can also be regulated in the collective bargaining agreement.
5. NATIONAL COURT CONFIRMS THE OBLIGATION TO ORGANISE EMPLOYEE MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS DURING WORKING HOURS
Judgment of the Labour Chamber, Section 1, of the Spanish National Court of 2 March 2020
In collective dispute proceedings, the operational staff of a security company requested the National Court to declare that their company medical examinations, whether voluntary or not, must be done during working hours or, if this is not possible, that the time spent at the medical examinations should be considered as working hours. The National Court held that employees cannot be forced to attend medical examinations outside their working hours, and in doing so analysed in detail whether the examinations could be considered voluntary given the nature of the work (security services) they performed.