In the ongoing dispute, the relaxation of duties that the lawyers of the Ministry of Justice could perform during their indefinite strike created a kind of legal gray zone. In some instances, this allowed actions that obstructed the work of justice officials under the umbrella of actions deemed to be handled through personal initiative, which in certain cases resembled harassment.
A complaint from the UGT union highlights concerns across multiple provincial courts and judicial bodies. The union argued that a clearer definition of the functions assigned to admins and handlers would have prevented many of the issues raised, and they pointed to the situation resurfacing this Wednesday as a reminder that such boundaries are essential. The Justice Department was urged to convene a wider gathering before the Benalúa courts, with representation from the sector of public services present in the union table.
From the UGT standpoint, while respecting the LAJ’s right to strike, the province reported a turnout of 77 percent yesterday. State-level figures cited by the strike organizers suggested a 25.5 percent participation. The union asserted that no pressure was exerted on the General Staff personnel who wished to perform their duties freely, emphasizing that working without interference is a constitutional right.
The union argued that the strike underscores an urgent need to clearly, unequivocally, and concisely limit the powers of each organ, especially those within the LAJ entrusted with implementation by the broader system. To address this, they requested the sectoral table to gather and discuss the proposed boundaries.
“Solution Intent”
The strike committee for the LAJ pledged its attendance at Friday’s scheduled meeting at the Ministry of Justice, indicating a genuine willingness to resolve the deadlock. The meeting aimed to move toward an agreement that could end the indefinite strike that began on January 24, tied to demands for salary adjustments to compensate for increased workloads.
The committee spokesperson, Juan Jose Yanez, added that they would engage with the ministry, led by Pilar Llop, as needed. He stressed that the group was not radical and remained open to exploring alternative paths to reach a settlement.
Friday would mark the second meeting after almost a month of halted work. The session was set to run from 10:30 to 12:00. Initially, tensions flared and mutual reproaches surfaced, but the aim remained to find a constructive way forward.
The Alicante Justice Administration’s attorneys were seen at one of the final concentrations near the press area. The situation drew attention to the broader dissatisfaction within the legal community regarding pay scales and workload distribution.
The gathering noted that the call for Friday’s meeting had arrived ahead of the actual discussions, a point of contention for some attendees who felt the preparations failed to give adequate time to prepare substantive proposals. One spokesperson observed that the process appeared insufficient to resolve what had become a prolonged conflict.
During the first press conference, the strike committee explained why the lawyers had stayed away from their desks for about a month. They described the body as prudent and professional, expressing that while they preferred not to be in the public eye, they would not abandon their dignity or their responsibilities. The tone suggested a determination to preserve office-based work life while seeking fair treatment.
The indefinite strike reached day 22 amid ongoing disputes over salary adequacy relative to the expanded duties and responsibilities taken on since 2009. The lawyers asserted that the workload had grown significantly without a commensurate pay adjustment, leaving them feeling shortchanged by the ministry.
“We Were Deceived”
The group claimed that promises had repeatedly fallen short. They recalled a 2009 moment when they were assured they would take on expanded roles and be compensated accordingly, but those expectations were never fully met. Yanez stated that there was a lasting impression that the promises did not translate into real improvements.
In 2020 and the 2021 reform period, salary adequacy had moved closer to standard levels, yet many felt the gains were either insufficient or not properly implemented. A planned strike in April 2022 was briefly called off after the ministry pledged improvements, including a prepayment provision for judges. The lawyers described the follow-through as lacking and efforts to maintain contact with the ministry as unfulfilled.
On April 4, 2022, a formal agreement and related publication appeared on the Ministry of Justice website, with Pilar Llop cited as positively evaluating the proposed improvements. The changes were described as aligning salaries more closely with the career path of judges, though the full impact remained contested across the sector.
In a broader critique during a press conference, the LAJ members argued that the ministry had not done enough to reduce tensions or to forge a genuine path toward understanding. They criticized the government for suggesting a political motive behind the strike and pressed for direct, honest dialogue aimed at resolving the core issues in the administration of justice. The call extended to the central leadership to take a personal role in resolving the dispute through good-faith negotiation. The aim, as explained, was to stabilize the justice system and address the most serious problems facing public justice administration.
The minister, Tontxu Rodríguez, urged an end to what he called a privileged strike and expressed hope that the lawyers would participate in Friday’s meeting with the objective of concluding the dispute. He warned that new offers could keep shifting the terms of engagement and that the process must adhere to a stable set of rules. Rodríguez noted a 14 percent salary increase this year and reminded the profession that lawful, fair compensation should accompany reasonable workload expectations.