1. THERE IS NO OBLIGATION TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF SUCCESSIVE ASSIGNMENTS OF A TEMPORARY agency WORKER
The Court of Justice of the European Union has held that the first sentence of Article 5(5) of EU Directive 2008/104 on temporary agency work does not oblige Member States to implement specific measures, but it does preclude Member States from not taking measures to ensure the temporary nature of agency work. Consequently, it is permissible for national legislation to not limit the number of successive assignments that the same temporary worker may carry out for the same agency. The Court also clarified that there need not be technical, production, organisational or replacement reasons justifying the use of temporary employment agency workers.
2. AN EMPLOYEE can be legally dismissed ON THE BASIS OF DATA EXTRACTED FROM THE GPS OF A COMPANY CAR
The Spanish Supreme Court has ruled that the dismissal of a worker that used a company car while on sick leave and during rest periods from work is lawful. The court held that the use of the data extracted from the GPS installed in the company car did not infringe the privacy rights of the worker, given that a GPS does not provide any personal data and, consequently, the employee's private life was not impinged upon.
3. PERIODS OF INACTIVITY OF a PERMANENT DISCONTINUOUS WORKER SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT to calculate COMPENSATION
The Labour Chamber of the Supreme Court has held that, despite the fact that the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union establishes that, for the purposes of remuneration and career advancement, periods of inactivity of permanent discontinuous workers must be taken into account, this does not apply when calculating compensation for a dismissal. Therefore, the periods during which the permanent discontinuous worker has not worked must not be taken into account for compensation purposes.
4. A TEMPORARY employment AGENCY MAY NOT CONCLUDE A permanent DISCONTINUOUS CONTRACT WITH A WORKER assigned to clients
The Labour Chamber of the Supreme Court has held that the contract between a temporary employment agency and the user company is always temporary; therefore a worker cannot be hired under a permanent discontinuous contract for the purpose of being assigned to a user company. If the user company has a recurring requirement, it should hire a permanent discontinuous worker directly.
5. THE SUPREME COURT rules that EMAILS are VALID AS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
The Supreme Court has ruled that emails are permitted as documentary evidence. Due to the advances in technology, many documents are presented in court on electronic media. Therefore, a broad concept of what documentary evidence is must be established, as otherwise the courts’ review of the facts of a case would be limited to written documents, which are destined to disappear in the future.
6. In case of conventional subrogation, not every breach of formal obligations by the outgoing contractor results in its LIABILITY for the dismissal of the workers.
The Labour Chamber of the Supreme Court has held that an outgoing contractor should not be held responsible for the failure to comply with formal requirements established in the applicable collective bargain agreement when it derives from a previous one from the incoming contractor or from third parties, being in these cases exonerated from any liability.
|
