There is a Supreme Court II. canceled part of the Collective Agreement The work of the Catalonia Food Supermarkets and Supermarkets, with reference to the state of Girona, of these organizations have to pay 10% moreas a contingency bonus, To workers in the sector employed by Temporary Labor Offices (ETTs) more than those hired directly by supermarkets.
Social Department, questioned paragraphs Dealing “serious damage” to ETTs because “they are deprived of not being able to pay their transferred personnel under the same conditions as the user companies. Forced, extra cost that entails the obligation to pay a higher wage discourages formalization of contracts for usability”.
With the higher salary, he adds: Improving the situation of those who provide their activities, but he qualifies that “it is not a matter of affirming that raising the wages of certain persons is harmful, it is merely done according to a particular category and with the sole aim of increasing the cost it represents.”
The sentence explains that changing salary costs to the wages required by the legislator “negatively affects the rights of ETTs”. Therefore, “what a negotiated collective agreement without adequate representation to do so changes the wage equalization ruleIncreasing the salary costs of ETTs disrupts the order that the legislator wants”.
Likewise, it points to Going to such companies does not increase temporary employment opportunities.Therefore, the judgment brought and questioned is “harmless in terms of reducing precariousness, which is the justification accepted by the lower court’s decision that legitimizes it.”
Tell me partly why
The court partially approved Appeal made by the Association of Employment Agencies and Temporary Employment Companies (ASEMPLEO) requested the annulment of paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of Section 11 of Annex 3 to the contested Agreement, for harming this association and its affiliated companies by imposing direct obligations on temporary agents.
The Chamber concludes that paragraph 5 of the Agreement, which provides for the delivery of a copy of the contracts to the Joint Commission, and paragraph 7 of the Annex dedicated to the state of Girona, with higher salaries, formally create obligations for unrepresented companies. the contract has been excluded from the scope of application, therefore it is not valid.
On the other hand, it retains paragraph 6 of the Agreement, which gives the Mixed Commission the task of monitoring availability contracts, to the extent that it does not impose a new obligation on or harm ETTs.