1. CRITICISING A PERSON’S WORK OR SKILLS IS NOT NECESSARILY AN OFFENCE AGAINST THEIR HONOUR
The Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court held that accusing a professional of lacking motivation, leadership and commitment in a termination letter, which was not disseminated, did not constitute a violation of the right to honour, even though the arbitration tribunal determined that the accusations had not been proven.
back to
top
2. OUTSOURCING THE CLEANING SERVICES OF TWO HOTELS IS A VALID ORGANISATIONAL GROUND FOR COLLECTIVE REDUNDANCY
The Supreme Court held that outsourcing the cleaning services of two hotels was an appropriate way of dealing with the effects of a significant decrease in occupancy rates. In this case, the organisational measure was reasonable because it was proportional, given that the company in question was able to better adapt to fluctuations in occupancy rates.
back to
top
3. DELIVERING A LETTER COMMUNICATING AN OBJECTIVE DISMISSAL TO AN EMPLOYEE IN THE PRESENCE OF AN EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATIVE IS NOT THE SAME AS DELIVERING A COPY OF THE LETTER TO THE EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATIVE
The Supreme Court held that the obligation to deliver a copy of the dismissal letter to the employee representatives is an independent formal obligation, which was not fulfilled when the letter was delivered to the employee in the presence of a member of the works council. As this separate formal obligation had not been met, the dismissal was unfair.
back to
top
4. EMPLOYEES CAN STOP WORKING AND RETAIN THEIR RIGHT TO TERMINATION AND COMPENSATION IF THEY ARE NOT PAID FOR SIX MONTHS
The Supreme Court confirmed that an employee cannot be obliged to continue working when this causes a serious economic impairment (such as not paying an employee’s salary continuously) or a loss of professional opportunities. In this case, the employee was entitled to stop working before he filed the claim for voluntary termination, and still retained his right to compensation for unfair dismissal.
back to
top
5. SUBSTANTIAL MODIFICATION OF INDIVIDUAL WORKING CONDITIONS PROCEDURES CAN BE APPEALED BEFORE A HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IF JOINED TO A CLAIM INVOLVING OVER 3,000 EUROS IN DAMAGES
The Supreme Court clarified that a joint interpretation of articles 191.2.e) and g) of the Labour Courts Law and article 192 of the same Law leads to the conclusion that, although, in principle, the substantial modification of individual working conditions cannot be appealed before a high court of justice, the appeal is possible if the claim challenging the modification is joined to a claim for damages involving an amount higher than the threshold established in article 191.2.g) (i.e. EUR 3,000).
back to
top
6. EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATIVES DO NOT NEED TO BE PROVIDED WITH A COPY OF THE LETTER COMMUNICATING AN INDIVIDUAL DISMISSAL IN THE CONTEXT OF A COLLECTIVE DISMISSAL
The Supreme Court stated that the formal guarantees established in the Statute of Workers for objective dismissal do not automatically apply in full to contract terminations of employees affected by a collective dismissal. There are some exceptions, such as collective dismissals for which a copy of the dismissal letter does not legally need to be delivered to the employee representatives.
back to
top
7. A COMPANY COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT DOES NOT APPLY TO MATTERS OVER WHICH THE NATIONAL COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT HAS PRECEDENCE
The Supreme Court considered that the provisions of a company’s collective bargaining agreement regulating matters over which the sector’s collective bargaining agreement has precedence do not apply while the latter is in force. The Court clarified that even though these provisions do not apply, they are not void, given that once either of the two collective bargaining agreements expires, the other applies in full.
back to
top
8. A SUBROGATION CLAUSE IN A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT LIMITING THE TRANSFEREE’S LIABILITY WITH REGARD TO THE OUTSTANDING SALARY DUE BY THE TRANSFEROR IS VALID
The rule in article 14 of the 2012-2014 National Collective Bargaining Agreement for Security Companies, which establishes mandatory subrogation in the event of succession or transfer of contracts and excludes the transferee’s liability with regard to any outstanding salary due by the transferor which accrued before the latter pulled out of the contract, is valid according to the Supreme Court.
back to
top
9. COMMERCIAL COURTS CAN DECLARE THE COLLECTIVE TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS EVEN WHEN CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL PROCEEDINGS ARE UNDERWAY BEFORE THE EMPLOYER’S INSOLVENCY IS DECLARED
In the context of insolvency proceedings, the Supreme Court stated that collective or individual constructive dismissals caused by the company’s economic situation or insolvency must be treated the same as individual termination claims filed in accordance with article 50 of the Statute of Workers and based on the same circumstances. Therefore, commercial courts are understood to have the authority to declare the collective termination of the employment contracts of the employees who had already initiated constructive dismissal proceedings when the insolvency proceedings were declared due to the employer’s economic situation.
back to
top
10. FAILING TO DISSEMINATE A TRADE UNION COMMUNICATION URGING WORKERS TO TAKE PART IN A CLAIM AGAINST MEMBERS OF THE COMPANY’S MANAGEMENT ON THE INTRANET IS A VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO TRADE UNION FREEDOM
The Supreme Court confirmed the decision of the National Court that ordered a financial institution to cease blocking, censoring and refusing to publicise a trade union’s communications, and to indemnify that trade union for the damages it may have suffered as a consequence of this violation of the right to trade union freedom.
back to
top
11. A THIRD CONTRACTOR IS NOT OBLIGED TO TAKE ON THE EMPLOYEES OF THE FIRST CONTRACTOR WHOSE DISMISSAL WAS DECLARED UNFAIR
This case involved a succession of contracts, during which, exceptionally and between the first contractor leaving and the last contractor starting to render the services, a third company provided the services. The Supreme Court rejected an employee’s claim who was dismissed by the first company and who requested that the last contractor be declared liable for unfair dismissal. The Court considered that in this case the third contractor was not obliged to take on the employees who had been dismissed unfairly by the first contractor.
back to
top
12. REDUCING THE MAXIMUM LUNCH AND DINNER EXPENSES IS A SUBSTANTIAL MODIFICATION OF WORKING CONDITIONS
The National Court held that limiting payment of expenses that are difficult to justify to days employees spend outside the office, provided they are out of the office for more than half of their working day and the amounts established for these expenses are respected, does not constitute a substantial modification of working conditions. However, reducing the maximum lunch or dinner expenses does amount to a substantial modification of working conditions.
back to
top
13. DISCIPLINARY DISMISSAL HELD UNFAIR BECAUSE THE EMPLOYEE HAD A SERIOUS COMPULSIVE GAMBLING DISORDER
The High Court of Justice of Castilla la Mancha (“HCJ”) upheld the decision of the first instance court declaring the disciplinary dismissal of an employee unfair. On various occasions the employee had withheld several clients’ mail containing bank cards so that he could use them. The HCJ stated that the employee’s compulsive bargaining disorder exonerated him of any culpability, which is an essential requirement for disciplinary dismissals.
1. CRITICISING A PERSON’S WORK OR SKILLS IS NOT NECESSARILY AN OFFENCE AGAINST THEIR HONOUR