The Social Chamber of the Supreme Court has rejected the claim of an employee of the Arrecife City Council, who claimed 6,830.14 euros from the Council "as salary differences for carrying out work of a higher category", considering that it has not been proven that she performed such functions.
The worker, who has been providing services in the Infractions department of the Arrecife City Council since November 2004, having the category of administrative assistant recognized, argued in her claim that from March 2015 to February 2017 she had been carrying out tasks with "fitting into the functions of the professional category of administrative" and therefore requested the payment of 6,830.14 euros.
However, the Social Court number 3 of Arrecife already issued a judgment in March 2017 dismissing the worker's claim, understanding that from the evidence presented it was not clear "that the plaintiff has been performing functions of the claimed category".
"Her functions correspond to those of the category she holds"
This ruling was ratified by the Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands, after the worker appealed the first instance ruling. "It can be concluded that the functions that the plaintiff performs daily correspond to those of the administrative assistant category that she holds", stated that second ruling issued on August 29, 2017 by the Social Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands,
In this regard, it concluded that "in effect, the plaintiff performs functions of customer service and registration of documentation and mechanization of files in the corresponding template" but "without assuming responsibility or autonomy in the instruction of said files, without the fact that another colleague with the category of administrative performs the same functions as the plaintiff obviating such conclusion, since it is possible that the employer assigns tasks of lower categories to its employees".
Faced with such a ruling, the worker decided to file an appeal with the Supreme Court insisting "on her right to the salary differences for performing functions of a higher category", but it has been rejected by the Social Chamber of the high court, which has also declared the firmness of the appealed ruling.
