In a ruling from the Supreme Court II, a portion of a Collective Agreement related to Catalonia’s food retail sector, specifically within the Girona region, was canceled. The decision affects how a contingency bonus is applied. The ruling notes that workers in the sector who are employed by Temporary Labor Agencies (ETTs) receive a higher contingency bonus than those directly employed by supermarkets. This distinction has sparked debate about wage practices and the fairness of the bonus structure across different employer configurations. [Source: Court decision, summarized interpretation]
Officials in the Social Department raised questions about paragraphs that they say would cause serious harm to ETTs. The concern is that ETT workers do not receive the same treatment as staff placed directly with user companies, creating a gap in pay and conditions. The additional cost that comes with higher wages could discourage the formalization of contracts for temporary workers and thus impact labor market fluidity. [Source: Administrative commentary on the ruling]
Proponents argue that higher salaries improve the situation for those delivering services under temporary arrangements. However, they acknowledge that this must be interpreted within the context of a specific category and with the intention of addressing a particular benefit to workers, not to inflate costs indiscriminately. The discussion centers on whether shifting salary obligations up to levels mandated by legislators actually helps or harms the broader system of temporary employment. [Source: Legal analysis accompanying the ruling]
The judgment clarifies that changing compensation costs to align with legislated wages may negatively affect the rights or operating framework of ETTs. It states that a negotiated collective agreement, if created without adequate representation from all parties, can alter the wage equalization framework and raise wage costs for ETTs, thereby disturbing the policy equilibrium the legislature seeks to achieve. [Source: Judicial commentary within the decision]
Additionally, the court notes that simply channeling work through these companies does not automatically increase the number of temporary jobs. The ruling suggests that the case at hand is not about expanding employment opportunities, but about evaluating whether the previously contested provisions truly reduced job precarity or simply shifted cost structures. In other words, the core justification used by the lower court to validate the agreement was scrutinized. [Source: Jurisprudential assessment in the ruling]
Tell me partly why
The court partially granted the appeal filed by the Association of Employment Agencies and Temporary Employment Companies (ASEMPLEO). The association sought the annulment of sections 5, 6, and 7 of Section 11 of Annex 3 to the contested Agreement. The claim was that these paragraphs imposed direct obligations on temporary staffing firms and their networks, potentially harming the association and its members. [Source: Court ruling]
The Chamber concluded that paragraph 5 of the Agreement, which required providing a copy of contracts to a Joint Commission, and paragraph 7 of the Girona-specific annex, which involved higher salary levels, created formal obligations for unrepresented companies. Because the contract had been excluded from the scope of application, those provisions were deemed not valid. [Source: Judicial summary of non-applicability]
By contrast, paragraph 6 of the Agreement, which assigns monitoring duties on availability contracts to the Mixed Commission, was retained. The court held that this paragraph does not impose new obligations on, nor harm, ETTs. In effect, this element was seen as a supervisory function rather than an obligation that would increase costs or restrict flexibility for temporary workers. [Source: Court’s retention rationale]