General assembly meeting of the Social Chamber Supreme Court In one decision, while receiving unemployment benefits, he declared: The period for which previous benefits were received as a result of the suspension of the employment contract by the employer is not considered as worked. postpone Due to force majeure circumstances decided during the Covid epidemic.
In its decision, the Fourth Chamber stated that the special regulations created by royal decree in 2020 due to Covid were “It does not introduce any new rule from which it can be derived that this type of unemployment provides more benefits than are generally expected. “So that it should be understood as a wage paid in return for unemployment and allowing the acquisition of a new period of benefit.”
“In other words, This special law does not aim to create a different and more comprehensive right than that envisaged in the General Social Security Law (LGSS), on the contrary, it aims to protect the same legal status granted to the worker in ordinary regulations.“Although there is no business contribution during the Covid unemployment benefit period,” the court said.
The decision states that nothing precludes the possibility of periods of unemployment arising from pure contributions, even if they are not accompanied by the effective performance of a paid profession; These exceptional cases must be clearly considered in the law; this was not included in the decree regulating the situations created by the royal decree. Covid.
Gender violence only
Since this right is not provided for in special regulations, the Department concluded that the general rule of the Social Security Law is valid and this possibility is eliminated. ANDThe only obvious exception is social benefits. Recognized by suspension of business relationship due to gender violence.
In this context, the court explains that the following conclusion follows from the law: Contributions calculated for the purpose of recognizing a previous entitlement cannot be taken into account for a particular unemployment benefit. Regardless of what has been done by the managing organization or, as appropriate, by the company during the period corresponding to the payment of the benefit.
Therefore, the Department rejected the doctrine unification request of a hotel employee whose suspension was included within the scope of ERTE due to the pandemic. After he was fired, he filed a lawsuit against the State Public Employment Service (SPEE) for not complying with the days that this organization had given him for unemployment collection.
SEPE decided that the 660 days allowed was correct as periods in ERE status cannot be taken into account in the payment of a future benefit. The Social Court No. 6 of Madrid and the High Court of Justice of Madrid approved the administrative decision, a criterion that has now been confirmed by the Fourth Chamber of the Supreme Court.
Source: Informacion
James Sean is a writer for “Social Bites”. He covers a wide range of topics, bringing the latest news and developments to his readers. With a keen sense of what’s important and a passion for writing, James delivers unique and insightful articles that keep his readers informed and engaged.