1. MINIMUM daily REST PERIODS for employees who have several employment contracts with THE SAME EMPLOYERMUST apply per employee and not per contract IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH DIRECTIVE 2003/88/EC
The Court of Justice of the European Union has clarified that when an employee provides services to an employer under more than one contract, the minimum rest period applies per employee and not per contract. Otherwise, working time under one employment contract could overlap with rest time under another and, as Directive 2003/88/EC states, they are mutually exclusive.
2. ON-CALL hours should BE CONSIDERED AS WORKing TIME WHEN EMPLOYERS IMPOSE RESTRICTIONS THAT OBJECTIVELY and substantially LIMIT THE ability of employees TO FREELY manage THE ON-CALL HOURS DURING which their SERVICES ARE NOT REQUIRED
The Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled in two different cases regarding the circumstances in which on-call hours can be considered as working time. In both rulings it concludes that on-call hours can only be considered as working time when, following an overall assessment of the post, it is determined that the employee’s ability to freely manage the on-call hours during which their services are not required is significantly limited.
3. PARENTAL LEAVE IS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT AND CANNOT BE CONDITIONAL ON BEING EMPLOYED BY A COMPANY AT THE TIME OF A CHILD’S BIRTH
Making parental leave entitlement subject to the condition that an individual must be employed by a company at the time of the birth, adoption or fostering of a child is contrary to Directive 2010/18/EU as it restricts a future right. On the other hand, it is not considered contrary to EU law for parental leave to be conditional on holding a position in a company and being registered with the Social Security for an uninterrupted period of 12 months prior to the granting of the parental leave.
4. THE SUPREME COURT APPLIES RECENT CASE LAW ON WORKS AND SERVICES CONTRACTS TO SCHOOL ACTIVITIES PROVIDED IN A PRIVATE CENTRE, HIGHLIGHTING THE IMPORTANCE OF THE TEMPORARY, AUTONOMOUS AND SUBSTANTIVE NATURE OF THE ACTIVITY
The Supreme Court has interpreted a provision in the national collective bargaining agreement for private education centres that do not receive any state funding and that allows for certain activities to be offered in these centres by means of works and services contracts. The Supreme Court ruling establishes that demand for certain activities cannot determine whether they can be considered as temporary, especially when an employer can decide whether or not to include them.
5. PRORATED EXTRA PAY NOT PERMITTED BY A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WILL BE CONSIDERED AS ORDINARY PAY
A company failed to comply with a provision in a collective agreement not to pro-rate extra pay and instead prorated it from the beginning of the employment relationship, including it in the pay slips. Although the amount paid was correct and the monthly salary was not exceeded, the Supreme Court declared that owing to the breach of the collective agreement the company had to pay the employee the extra pay again, since the amounts received with the salary could not be considered extra pay.
6. THE LIMITATION PERIOD FOR SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS MUST BE CALCULATED FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE PAYMENT DEADLINE ENDS AND NOT FROM THE MOMENT IN WHICH THE DEBT ACCRUES
This case concerned the calculation of the four-year limitation period for social security contributions. The Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court has ruled that this period starts on the day after the end of the social security payment deadline.
7. A DISMISSAL CARRIED OUT IN A YEAR IN WHICH A COMPANY HAS FEWER LOSSES THAN THE PREVIOUS YEAR DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT ECONOMIC GROUNDS EXIST FOR THAT DISMISSAL
The Supreme Court has clarified that the existence of economic grounds, as regulated by article 51.1 of the Statute of Workers, is understood as established if losses continue, even if the dismissal is carried out in a year in which the company has had fewer losses than previous years.