1. RESOLUTION OF 23 FEBRUARY 2016 OF THE NATIONAL SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTE REGULATING THE AUTOMATED PROCESSING OF CERTAIN SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS
The resolution of 23 February 2016 regulates the processing, adoption and automated notification of resolutions regarding social security benefits that are issued by the National Social Security Institute.
back to
top
2. IN TERMINATIONS ARISING FROM COLLECTIVE REDUNDANCY PROCEEDINGS, THE INCLUSION OF THE EMPLOYEE SELECTION CRITERIA IN THE REDUNDANCY LETTER IS NOT REQUIRED
The Supreme Court clarified the formal requirements for the notification to individual employees regarding collective redundancies, noting that setting out the selection criteria established or agreed during the prior negotiation process is not required.
back to
top
3. AN EMPLOYER DOES NOT NEED AN EMPLOYEE’S CONSENT TO PROCESS IMAGES THAT HAVE BEEN OBTAINED FROM CAMERAS INSTALLED FOR SECURITY PURPOSES AND TO MONITOR WORK
The Constitutional Court held that an employer did not need an employee’s consent to process images that had been obtained from cameras installed for security purposes and to monitor work, because it was a measure aimed at ensuring that employees complied with their labour obligations in accordance with article 20.3 of the Statute of Workers.
back to
top
4. RISK-PREVENTION REPRESENTATIVE HAS THE RIGHT TO ACCESS REPORTS AND DOCUMENTS RESULTING FROM THE COMPANY’S INVESTIGATION OF EMPLOYEES’ HEALTH HAZARDS
The Supreme Court recognised the risk-prevention representative’s right to access reports and documents arising from the company’s investigation of the employees’ health hazards. The Supreme Court reached this conclusion on the basis that the reports form part of the overall process of evaluating occupational hazards.
back to
top
5. SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES METHOD FOR CALCULATING COMPENSATION FOR UNFAIR DISMISSAL OF EMPLOYEES WITH AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WHICH PREDATES THE REFORM OF 2012
The Supreme Court ruled that, if the amount of compensation for unfair dismissal resulting for the period worked before 12 February 2012, based on 45 days of salary per year of service, exceeds the compensation limit of 720 days of salary, any compensation accruing after this date will not be taken into account for compensation purposes.
back to
top
6. AN EMPLOYEE CANNOT BE DISMISSED FOR BEING UNDER CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION
The Supreme Court held that the fact an employee was under criminal investigation was not a sufficient reason to terminate his employment contract, and as such his dismissal was unfair. However, the dismissal was held not to infringe the employee’s right to dignity, honour or privacy, even though the company had not proven that the employee was under criminal investigation.
back to
top
7. AN EMPLOYER MUST IDENTIFY PSYCHOSOCIAL RISKS IN ACCORDANCE WITH OCCUPATIONAL HAZARD PREVENTION LEGISLATION
The Supreme Court ordered a company to repeat an evaluation of psychosocial risks after it was proved that the method used to identify a specific type of risk was not appropriate and the employee representatives were not allowed to participate in the process.
back to
top
8. APPELLANT COMPANY MUST DEPOSIT BACK PAY INTO COURT WHEN THE FIRST INSTANCE JUDGMENT DECLARES THE COLLECTIVE REDUNDANCY NULL
The Supreme Court ruled that if a company intends to appeal a first instance judgment that declares a collective redundancy null, the company must deposit the back pay into court. This only applies to collective redundancy proceedings that are initiated from 4 August 2013 onwards.
back to
top
9. A COMPANY’S OBLIGATION TO IDENTIFY THE CAUSES OF CONTRACT TERMINATION IN THE DISMISSAL LETTER DOES NOT EQUATE TO THE REASON FOR CHOOSING THE AFFECTED EMPLOYEE
Regarding the content of a dismissal letter and evidentiary requirements, the Supreme Court considered that the employer was only required to determine what article 53.1 of the Statute of Workers establishes in conjunction with article 52.c) of the Statute. Therefore, the employer was not required to prove that the dismissal directly affects the employee given that the employer’s task is instead to choose the specific post to terminate in exercise of its powers of management and organisation of the company’s activities.
back to
top
10. NEGOTIATION BY EMAIL DURING CONSULTATION PERIOD REQUIRES THE INVOLVEMENT OF ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE NEGOTIATION BODY
The National Court, in the context of a challenged collective substantial change of working conditions, held that the company was not allowed to negotiate by email with each trade union of the negotiating body individually and thus exclude the other members, because the company must negotiate with the negotiation body as a whole during the consultation period.
back to
top
1. RESOLUTION OF 23 FEBRUARY 2016 OF THE NATIONAL SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTE REGULATING THE AUTOMATED PROCESSING OF CERTAIN SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS