1. THE DURATION OF PAID REST periods FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF OBLIGATORY SHIFTS DOES NOT DECREASE for EMPLOYEES on reduced working hours due to childcare responsibilities
Judgment of the Spanish Constitutional Court, Plenum, of 2 July 2020
This judgment concerned the possibility of applying the reduction in working hours due to childcare responsibilities not only to the number of hours of the ordinary working day (which decreased from 1,523 to 1,020.41 hours, for seven-hour days) and to the number of hours of obligatory shifts of health employees (which decreased from 44 to 30, for ten-hour days), but also to the number of hours of paid rest calculated for each shift (which the company reduced from 7 hours to 4.69 hours).
The Spanish Constitutional Court recognised that it was a difference in treatment that was contrary to Article 14 of the Spanish Constitution, so the reduction in working hours does not apply to the number of hours of paid rest leave.
2. COMPLICATIONS AND INJURIES deriving from CHILDBIRTH SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS NON-OCCUPATIONAL ACCIDENTS AND NOT AS COMMON illnesses
Judgment of the Labour Chamber of the Spanish Supreme Court of 2 July 2020
The Supreme Court analysed whether or not a permanent disability deriving from complications and injuries suffered during childbirth should be considered a common illness or, conversely, a non-occupational accident.
The Supreme Court decided that the case analysed should be considered as a non-occupational accident, reasoning that it is not a matter of a gradual deterioration in health, but rather it is more similar to the sudden and violent action inherent to the concept of an accident. It is also important to bear in mind that pregnancy and childbirth are not illnesses, which makes it even more difficult to associate what happened to the appellant in childbirth with an illness.
3. THE SALARY THAT is used to calculate THE SEVERANCE PAYMENT OF A ‘FALSE intern’ IS that which is ESTABLISHED IN THE APPLICABLE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, EVEN IF AT THE TIME OF THE DISMISSAL A LOWER salary WAS ACTUALLY being RECEIVED
Judgment of the Labour Chamber of the Spanish Supreme Court of 23 June 2020
The Supreme Court examined what salary was to be used to calculate compensation for an unfair dismissal in the framework of an appeal brought by an intern claiming she was in an employment relationship.
The Supreme Court reiterated that the salary to be taken into account for the calculation of a severance payment for an unfair dismissal is not the salary that the employee was receiving at the time of the dismissal if this was lower than that established in the applicable collective bargaining agreement. On the contrary, it should be the salary established in the collective bargaining agreement that is used, based on the level of seniority and professional category.
4. THE PAYMENT OF a portion of an EMPLOYEE’S salary without making the relevant social security and tax contributions JUSTIFIES THE TERMINATION of the employment contract at the employee’s request with him or her being entitled to receive compensation
Judgment of the Labour Chamber of the Spanish Supreme Court of 18 June 2020
The Supreme Court analysed whether it was possible to terminate the employment contract at the request of the employee when the company pays a portion of his or her remuneration without declaring it to the competent social security and tax authorities. It concluded that concealing documents relating to a portion of an employee’s salary over a very long period of time, the failure to comply with the obligation to pay social security contributions in accordance with the law, and obtaining payment documents that are signed but not paid, are clear indications of a serious breach of the company's obligations that justifies the termination of the employees' employment relationship with an entitlement to compensation.
5. THE VOLUNTARY RESIGNATION of an employee PROPOSED BY THE COMPANY AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO DISMISSAL AND reporting the incident TO THE POLICE DOES not vitiate the employee’s consent
Judgment of the Labour Chamber of the High Court of Justice of Catalonia of 11 December 2019
The High Court of Justice of Catalonia recognised that consent to the termination of an employment relationship at the request of an employee who was found to be stealing from the company and was offered the possibility of leaving the company voluntarily as an alternative to their dismissal and reporting the facts to the police was valid. The employee was informed that her actions, which she expressly acknowledged, meant that the company could no longer place its trust in her and therefore the employment relationship could be terminated by either option.
6. THE PROHIBITION on carrying out DISMISSALs DURING THE STATE OF emergency means a DISMISSAL carried out during this period is invalid
Judgment of the Labour Court number 3 of Sabadell of 6 July 2020
The termination of an employment contract during the state of emergency, which took place on 27 March 2020 with effect from the following day, was declared invalid on the grounds that it infringed the prohibition contained in article 2 of Royal Decree-Law 9/2020, of 27 March, with regard to the termination of employment contracts for reasons linked to the COVID-19 health crisis.