1. COMPENSATION FOR TERMINATION OF TEMPORARY REPLACEMENT CONTRACTS
The Court of Justice of the European Union held that domestic law denying compensation for terminating temporary replacement contracts, while recognising the right to compensation for dismissals of comparable employees with permanent contracts violated European Union law. According to the Court of Justice, the mere fact that an employee had rendered services under a temporary replacement contract was not an objective ground for denying the employee compensation.
2. SELF-EMPLOYED WORKERS WHO SET UP A COMPANY ARE ALSO ENTITLED TO RECEIVE THEIR UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS AS A LUMP-SUM PAYMENT
The Supreme Court held that self-employed workers who set up a company are also entitled to be paid all their unemployment benefits as a lump sum, and not only if they are registered as self-employed workers or as an employee holding a stake in a cooperative or an employee-owned company.
3. A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT CAN REGULATE A TEMPORARY RELOCATION IF IT DOES NOT IMPLY A CHANGE OF RESIDENCE
The Supreme Court held that a collective bargaining agreement that regulated a temporary short-distance relocation that did not require a change of residence did not violate articles 40 and 41.7 of the Statute of Workers. The Supreme Court stated that the relocation was merely an incidental change to the employment conditions and could be negotiated through collective bargaining.
4. ANNUAL LEAVE DOES NOT ACCRUE DURING THE PERIOD BETWEEN AN EMPLOYEE’S DISMISSAL BEING DECLARED VOID AND HIS OR HER SUBSEQUENT REINSTATEMENT
The High Court of Justice of the Basque Country held that no annual leave is accrued in the period between the declaration of nullity of an employee’s dismissal and his or her reinstatement. The High Court stated that no services were rendered during that period that would give rise to the right to paid leave.
5. WORK CALENDARS WITHOUT SCHEDULES OR SHIFTS ARE VALID
The High Court of Justice of Andalusia upheld the validity of a labour calendar that did not include any schedules or shifts, since that was not required by either the Statute of Workers or the applicable collective bargaining agreement.
6. DISCIPLINARY DISMISSAL OF AN EMPLOYEE WHO WAS RECORDED BY SECURITY CAMERAS STEALING MONEY FROM A COLLEAGUE’S VEHICLE LOCATED IN THE COMPANY’S CAR PARK IS FAIR
Labour Court 3 of Tarragona upheld the fairness of the disciplinary dismissal of an employee who stole an unspecified amount of money from another employee’s vehicle that was located in the company’s car park. The act was recorded by permanent security cameras that the company had installed to control the common access areas.
back to
top