The Supreme Court has rejected the request of a union to know the “real salary” of each worker in the basic copy of the contract that the employers give to the legal representation of the workers. The complaint criticized the conduct of a company, which included in this document “salary according to agreement” or “according to agreement”, but the Supreme Court has endorsed its actions.
All companies must have the salary register by sex ready from this April 14
In the litigation, the union demanded that it be declared “the right that the basic copy of the contracts that the company delivers to the workers’ representatives must contain an expression of the agreed real salary, the expression according to the agreement not being valid” .
The National Court rejected the union’s request in the first instance, which is why it appealed in cassation before the Supreme Court, since it insisted that the practice of not communicating the real salary in the basic copy resulted in an “infringement” of article 8.4 of the Statute from the workers.
Said article establishes that the employer must deliver to the legal representation of the workers “a basic copy of all the contracts that must be entered into in writing, with the exception of the special employment relationship contracts for senior management on which the duty of notification is established. to the legal representation of workers “.
The Supreme Court rejects the union’s claim on the grounds that the employer is not obliged to provide data other than those contained in the original document, since this would mean expanding the obligation legally established in the Statute, the Europa Press agency collects.
“The employer has to deliver a copy. Therefore, he is not obliged to supply data other than those that appear in the original document. Moreover, if he did so, he would not comply with the precept”, recall the magistrates of a previously handed down sentence by the Chamber.
The magistrates maintain that although the union points out that “it is evident that there must be another written document (whose nature is logically an employment contract) stating that salary agreement” has not been “nothing has proven in this regard.” “No factual data allows to sustain the existence of complementary or modifying agreements of the contracts initially signed, and which are the ones described above,” indicates the sentence, so the Supreme Court considers that “the business party has fulfilled the burden of delivering the copy of the contracts with the basic data contained in those contracts “.
The Court has also rejected the request of the Public Prosecutor’s Office to allow the legal representation to know the real remuneration in order to verify whether the parameters established in the mandatory remuneration register by sex are met, after the approval of the equal remuneration regulations. The judgment understands that “no element” allows it to be held that “the defendant had failed to comply with that requirement” and also recalls that the claim made does not “project itself in any way.”