Collecting payroll after more than one year with a delay of more than ten days. The Supreme Court considers enough gravity declare termination of employment contract and convict a company Compensate with 48,232,73 eurosWhile reinforcing the jurisprudence on this subject, the worker who is exposed to these delays p.
Decision of 10 January to which El Periódico de España from the Prensa Ibérica group had access, Contrary to the criteria originally set by the Madrid High Court of Justiceunderstands that the average delay in payroll collection is not excessive and can be considered completely predictable given the company’s economic difficulties
The specific case decided in this sentence, the rapporteur Judge Concepcion Rosario Ureste, This corresponds to a worker working in an industrial machinery assembly company with a gross salary of 2,624.47 Euros per month since 2007.
Employee experienced Delays in payment of payroll from April 2019 to March 2020, Then he sued. The Supreme Court decision considered that the average delay time was 10 and a half days, and it was proved that at a given moment the April 2019 salary payment was made in two installments, on 20 May and 31 May 2019.
After the worker’s defense lost her case in both the Social Court No. 15 in Madrid and the Supreme Court, she filed a doctrinal consolidation request with the Supreme Court as to whether the delay in payroll was serious enough for the worker. justify termination of your employment contract with compensation, something stipulated in section 50.1.b) of the Labor Act. To this end, he argued that the doctrine established in a 2008 decision that examined a similar case was applied by the high court.
On this occasion, the Supreme Court examined the delay in payment of the salary of a bankrupt company and determined the objective criteria for the interpretation of the reason for bankruptcy.l Article 50.1.b of the Regulation concluding that, whatever the fault of the employer, if the delays are serious enough, they may cause the termination of the employment contract, thus resulting in the requested compensation.
The “basic” task of the employer
These allegations are dealt with in this particular case and by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which for one year found the employer “failed to perform the essential duty established in the Labor Law”. gravity itself –It is not sporadic, it recurs over time.– and this eventually led to an installment payment with a greater delay in the case of salary corresponding to April 2019, full of solemnity”.
For the Social Division of the supreme court, the employer “does not have unilateral power to modify or condition compliance with the obligation timely payment of the salary” and therefore complies with the criteria of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, which evaluated the objection.