1. SPANISH MARKETS AND COMPETITION COMMISSION HAS NO AUTHORITY TO REFER QUESTIONS TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING
Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 September 2020, matter C-462/2019
The Court of Justice of the European Union rejected the request submitted by the Spanish Markets and Competition Commission for a preliminary ruling in relation to concerns regarding the collective bargaining agreements that modify the Fourth Agreement on the regulation of employment relations in the stevedoring sector in Spain. The court pointed out that the referral procedure to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling regulated by Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union is reserved for "judicial authorities" and thus the Spanish Markets and Competition Commission cannot resort to this procedure.
2. SUPREME COURT RULES THAT FOOD-DELIVERY RIDERS AND COURIERS ARE NOT SELF-EMPLOYED WORKERS
Judgment of the Labour Chamber of the Spanish Supreme Court of 23 September 2020
The Spanish Supreme Court held that the relationship between food-delivery riders and couriers and the defendant employer is an employment one, and therefore the worker is not self-employed. The court found that all the elements inherent to employment relationships were present and that the employer is not merely an intermediary that provides delivery and courier services between businesses and delivery companies, but rather decides the essential conditions for the provision of the services.
3. MANDATORY MINIMUM COMPENSATION FOR DISMISSAL OF SENIOR EXECUTIVES EXEMPT FROM PERSONAL INCOME TAX
Judgment of the Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the Spanish Supreme Court of 4 September 2020
The Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court ratified its case law that, when employers terminate a senior executive’s contract, he or she is entitled to a mandatory minimum compensation of seven days' salary per year of work, up to a maximum of six monthly payments and, therefore this amount of compensation is exempt from personal income tax, pursuant to article 7.e) of the revised text of the Personal Income Tax Law, which was approved by Royal Legislative Decree 3/2004 of 5 March.
4. COMPANIES MUST PROVE THAT AN EMPLOYEE HAS UNDERPERFORMED COMPARED TO OTHER EMPLOYEES IN ORDER TO DISMISS HIM OR HER FOR NOT ACHIEVING THE OBJECTIVES SET
Judgment of the Labour Chamber of the Spanish Supreme Court of 1 July 2020
The Labour Chamber of the Supreme Court ruled that, when an employer decides to dismiss an employee for not having reached the sales objectives set out in his or her contract, it is the employer who must provide comparative data with respect to the level of sales achieved by other employees. In this regard, the employer must provide evidence of the employee’s underperformance and that, comparatively, his or her performance was lower than that of his or her colleagues, or his or her own past performance.
5. NOT APPLYING THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT IN RELATION TO WORKING HOURS IS NOT INCOMPATIBLE WITH AN COLLECTIVE REDUNDANCY PROCEDURE
Judgment of the Labour Chamber of the Spanish National Court of 30 July 2020
The Labour Chamber of the Spanish National Court held that the procedure of not applying (descuelgue) a collective bargaining agreement, regulated by article 82.3 of the Statute of Workers, may be applied simultaneously with an collective redundancy procedure (ERTE), provided that the relevant parties reach an agreement to this effect and the requirements established by legislature to support these measures are strictly fulfilled.
6. JUDGE RULES THAT A DISMISSAL LINKED TO COVID-19 IS UNFAIR AND ORDERS EMPLOYER TO PAY ITS EMPLOYEE EUR 60,000 IN COMPENSATION
Judgment of Labour Court 26 of Barcelona of 31 July 2020
Labour Court 26 of Barcelona ordered a company to pay an employee EUR 60,000 in compensation for unfair dismissal contrary to Royal Decree-Law 9/2020 of 27 March, under which employees cannot be dismissed for reasons related to the Covid-19 pandemic. The judge considered that, in this case, the compensation to which the employee would have been entitled by law was insufficient, given that such compensation was contrary to international regulations on dismissals.