The Social Chamber of the Supreme Court has sided with CCOO in a collective dispute lawsuit it filed against the company Sistemas de Seguridad SH Lanzarote for "breach" of the state agreement for the sector regarding working hours, overtime, and salary, by dismissing an appeal filed by the company against a ruling that, in the first instance, had already given the workers the reason "partially".
Specifically, in the ruling that the Social Chamber of the TSJC issued in December 2016 and that has been ratified by the Supreme Court, the company was ordered to act "respecting the rights of workers". And, as it was considered proven, the company, which also has work centers in Fuerteventura, Gran Canaria, and Tenerife, had tried to develop its own collective agreement in 2014 "which failed", after which it "unilaterally carried out in 2015 a collective modification of the economic conditions of the national collective agreement for the sector, equivalent to an opt-out, which affected working hours, overtime, seniority supplement, job position supplement, extra pay, travel, and remuneration".
Specifically, the TSJC declared the right of workers "to have the salary tables of the collective agreement applied to them" and "to have the seniority bonus and the proportional part of the hazard bonus included in the extra pay", as well as "to have the corresponding work schedule of their personnel submitted to the approval of the workers' representatives", "to have said representation informed of the organization of shifts and reliefs", and "to have the annual schedule delivered to the workers and the representatives one month in advance".
Exclusion of some requests for considering them "an individual conflict"
However, in that ruling that has now been ratified by the Supreme Court, the TSJC only partially upheld the collective dispute lawsuit filed by CCOO, excluding from the procedure "seven of the matters invoked" from its "extensive list of requests" for considering that they were proper "of an individual or plural conflict".
Thus, although it recognized the right of workers to be paid as stipulated according to the agreement and their right to receive certain bonuses, it did not do so with retroactive effect, which is what CCOO claimed, which individualized "the amounts that the company owes to 32 members of the staff for differences in base salary, extra pay, transportation bonus, clothing bonus, seniority, hazard pay, holiday hours, night hours, overtime, allowances, and travel", and to "another seven people for overtime".
A procedural spring activated "in a rash manner"
In addition, against said ruling, the company filed an appeal requesting that the "inadequacy of the procedure" be declared and that the lawsuit be dismissed, arguing that, in any case, it would be "a plural conflict". And, among other things, it argued that "matters such as salary and the inclusion of concepts in extra pay depend on each worker and do not fully fit with the collective conflict".
"There is neither inadequacy of procedure nor does the writing of formalization of the appeal meet the required requirements", the Supreme Court has ruled, which even points out that "given the emptiness and argumentative inconsistency" of the appeal filed by the company, it even thinks that it "has activated a procedural spring in a rash manner".
"We are not affirming that the opposition to the collective conflict has been reckless, nor that the filing of the appeal against a partially estimative ruling of the lawsuit can be so in itself. What we are stating is that it can be so to resort to this extraordinary appeal without minimal seriousness, lacking reasonable argumentation and without adjusting to the most elementary demands of the technique of the appeal (citation of infringed precepts, argumentation opposed to the ruling, separation of the reasons for the appeal, justification of the desire to change the account of facts, etc.)", argues the chamber, which, in addition to declaring the ruling issued by the TSJC firm, imposes on the company the payment of the costs generated by its appeal, which it sets at 800 euros.
