The Contentious-Administrative Court Number 4 of Las Palmas has dismissed the appeal filed by an agent of the Local Police of Tías, who intended to annul the work calendar approved in December 2020 by the City Council. The ruling considers that this calendar is justified by the "needs of the service" provided by the municipal police, and also emphasizes that the agents are already financially compensated for their "special conditions" of work.
In addition, having been "rejected all his claims", the sentence imposes the payment of the costs generated to the plaintiff, who is a delegate of the Independent Trade Union of Officials (CSIF), but undertook these legal actions in a personal capacity.
Precisely the fact that he acted "in his own name" is what has led the Court to reject the main argument on which his claim was based, focused on the fact that there was no "effective negotiation." What the agent questioned is that the work calendar "was not approved in accordance with the Regulations of the General Negotiation Table of public employees of the City Council of Tías", because it did not go ahead with a qualified majority, since only CCOO voted in favor, while UGT and CSIF, which have greater representation, voted against.
In this regard, the judgment responds that those who had to denounce this alleged "lack of negotiation" were the unions themselves, which are the "naturally legitimized" to do so. In the case of the plaintiff, he points out that "however much he is a member of the General Negotiation Table", he lacks the legitimacy to file a claim focused on that point, when the unions themselves have not done so, not even the one he represents.
"There is no violation of the right to equality"
What the ruling does assess is the rest of the reasons put forward by the plaintiff, because it understands that in that case they directly affect "his legitimate interests" as a member of the Local Police. With them, the agent asked that, if the entire calendar was not considered null, some of the points should be annulled, because he understood that they violated different rights. However, after analyzing them, the Court also rejects it.
Among other things, the plaintiff asked that the obligation to enjoy half of the holidays before June 30 be annulled. "The questioned provision responds to the purpose of organizing during the holiday period a service such as the Local Police that must be provided continuously and, in addition, in a municipality with a large tourist influx in the summer months. This is an organizational measure that tries to combine the enjoyment of vacations and the needs of the service, without appreciating any violation of the right of local police officers to enjoy annual vacations," the judgment responds.
Regarding the "differentiated treatment" that he denounced with respect to the rest of the public employees, the Court concludes that "it is justified by objective reasons, such as the characteristics of the police function itself."
Regarding the "obligation to work five days in addition to the annual working day", the ruling emphasizes that "it does not imply an increase in the working day, as interpreted by the appellant, but rather extraordinary services that are compensated with time off."
Similarly, it rejects that agents have to be compensated for holidays worked. On this point, the plaintiff questioned that the local police "work Saturdays, Sundays and holidays without any compensation", while the rest of the officials are compensated if they have to work on a holiday.
"There is no violation of the right to equality", concludes the Court, which recalls that "the special conditions of dedication and arduousness of the jobs of the local police are remunerated through the specific supplement."
Finally, the judgment also does not consider that allowing shift changes with 24 hours' notice violates any right. "Again", the judgment states, "it responds to an organizational reason, which finds its justification in the specificities of the Local Police service, which must be provided continuously."
To this, he also adds that this possibility of changing an agent's shift with only one day's notice "is not a generic power of the Headquarters", but a measure "of an extraordinary nature", which "must be based on service needs", and must "be justified in each case, without a priori appreciating any violation of the right to work-life balance and family life."
