Royal Decree 286/2006 of 10 March establishes the technical aspects of the preventive measures that must be taken in order to guarantee the protection of employees against risks associated with their exposure to noise at work. (More information)
Dismissal. Term to bring an action. Saturdays are not working days for procedural or pretrial purposes
In a judgment dated 23 January 2006, the Labour Chamber of the Spanish Supreme Court declared that Saturdays are not working days for the purposes of calculating the twenty-day term to file a dismissal lawsuit. (More information)
Widow’s pension. Awarding of this benefit to a woman after the death of her partner
In a judgment dated 26 January 2006, the Labour Court number 3 of Palma de Mallorca declared that a woman was entitled to receive a widow’s pension after the death of her female partner. (More information)
Royal Decree 286/2006 of 10 March, on the protection of employees´ health and safety with regard to hazards deriving from exposure to noise. Spanish Official Gazette, 11 March 2006
This Royal Decree applies to those activities in which workers are or may be exposed to risks derived from noise as a consequence of their job; its aim is to establish the minimum rules necessary to protect employees against risks to their health and safety that derive or may derive from exposure to noise, and in particular, to their hearing.
This regulation establishes: (i) an obligation on employers to establish and implement a program of technical and organizational measures to reduce employees’ exposure to noise when noise levels exceed the upper exposure action values; (ii) various instructions relating to risk evaluation; and (iii) rules relating to the surveillance of employees’ health in relation to the risks they face from being exposed to noise.
In addition, this Royal Decree implements the exception established in European Directive 2003/10/CE. According to this exception, individual hearing protectors need not be used when their full and proper use would be likely to cause greater risk to employees’ health and safety, provided that certain conditions exist and a serie of guarantees are in place. In this regard, the employer must send the labour authority the part of the risk evaluation that justifies this exception, as well as an estimate of the length of time during which it expects these circumstances will remain the same. In addition, each labour authority must send to the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs a list of the exceptions that apply in its region, which is subsequently sent to the European Commission.
Dismissal. Term to bring an action. Saturdays are not working days for procedural and pretrial purposes
Judgment of the Labour Chamber of the Supreme Court, dated 23 January 2006
In this case the Labour Chamber of the Supreme Court (“SC”) analyzed whether the Saturdays that fall between the date of a dismissal and the request for conciliation proceedings should be included in the calculation of the twenty working days term to file a dismissal action.
The SC points out that all the days that make up the term of twenty working days set forth in Article 59.3 of the Statute of Workers (“SW”) and Article 103.1 of the Labour Procedure Act (“LPA”) form part of the procedure designed to ensure the dismissal proceeding is valid. As such, conciliation proceedings that take place during these 20 working days do not interrupt the judicial proceedings but rather form part of the same pursuant to article 182 of the Judiciary Act.
For this reason, the SC has overturned the judgment of the Labour Chamber of the High Court of Justice of Andalusia (Malaga), dated 27 January 2005 and, in order to unify case law, holds that the Saturdays that fall between the date of dismissal and the filing of the conciliation request are not working days.
This judgment is particularly significant because it is the first of the SC to unify case law since the amendment to the Judiciary Act came into force that establishes that Saturdays are not working days for the purposes of procedural deadlines.
Judgment of Labour Court number 3 of Palma de Mallorca, dated 26 January 2006
In the case at hand, Labour Court number 3 of Palma de Mallorca analyzed whether the claimant (a woman) had the right to receive a widow’s pension after the death of her female partner, who at the time of her death was registered under the General Regime of the Social Security, making contributions and meeting the requirements for the purposes of death and survival benefits.
The claimant and the deceased were registered as a “de facto couple” in the Registry of City Council of Palma de Mallorca as, at that time, the law did not permit homosexual marriages (which are now legal in Spain following the entry into force of Law 13/2005 of 1 July on the modification of the Civil Code (“Law 13/2005”)).
On the basis of the foregoing, the claimant was awarded the corresponding widow’s pension on the grounds that, following the entry into force of Law 13/2005, the Tenth Additional Provision of the Civil Code is applicable by analogy to the case at hand since the three requirements set forth therein were met: (a) the couple lived together; (b) they could not have married before Law 13/2005 come into force; and (c) the deceased had died before Law 13/2005 came into force.