The Constitutional Court allows to question in an individual proceeding the cause of a collective dismissal that has ended with an agreement
The Constitutional Court, in a judgment dated July 21, 2021, has declared that it will be possible to discuss in individual dismissal proceedings the causes that gave rise to the collective dismissal, despite the fact that an agreement has been reached with the workers' representatives.
In the case under analysis, the Supreme Court's ruling had not gone into the causes of the collective dismissal that had ended with an agreement. However, the Constitutional Court points out that there is no legal provision enabling the causes to be considered as justified by the agreement (as is the case for substantial modification of working conditions) and, therefore, depriving the analysis of the causes of the collective dismissal in the individual procedure entails a violation of the fundamental right to effective judicial protection.
It is not contrary to the freedom of association for the company to meet with the workers or collaborators to inform them of its position
The National Court has analyzed a case in which the unions requested the conviction of a delivery company for violation of freedom of association, for having met with its riders to inform them of the advantages of maintaining their relationship with the company as self-employed.
The hearing declared that the right to freedom of association had not been violated because there was no rule prohibiting companies from discussing or raising labor or civil issues with their employees or collaborators, and the content of the meetings did not show that any union activity had been hindered.
The establishment of a 'hot desk' system does not constitute a substantial modification of working conditions
A judgment of the National Court, dated July 27, 2021, rules on the merits of the case and declares that the establishment of a job sharing system, known as Hot Desk, in which workers do not have a fixed job assigned to them does not constitute a substantial modification.
In this regard, the National Court argues that it is not one of the matters indicated in Article 41 of the Workers' Statute and, furthermore, the company's decision responds to a better use of material resources.
The company is not obliged to indicate the remuneration when delivering the basic copy of the contracts to the workers' representatives
In the case under consideration in the judgment of May 26, 2021, the Supreme Court declared that the company complies with its obligation to deliver the basic copy of the contracts to the workers' representatives, even though it does not indicate the actual salary received by the workers.
Without prejudice to the obligation to keep a salary register linked to the equality plan, the obligation to deliver the basic copy of the contracts is satisfied, even if the contracts state that the workers are paid "according to the agreement" or "according to the collective bargaining agreement".