Skip to main content
Social Media
  • twitter
  • linkedin
Home
  • About the project
    • About the project
    • Partnerships and Collaborators
    • Coordination Unit
    • Project Management Team
    • International Network of Judges and Legal Scholars
    • Research assistants
  • Case Law Database
    • Case index
    • Database charts
  • News
    • News and announcements
    • Press newsroom
  • Resources
    • Working papers and other resources
    • Media kit
  • Contacts
Back to the previous page

Spain, Supreme Court, 19 May 2022, Judgment 462/2022

Case overview

Share
  • linkedin
  • twitter
  • facebook
  • envelope
  • print
Country
Spain
Case ID
Judgment 462/2022
Decision date
19 May 2022
ECLI
ECLI:ES:TS:2022:2028
Deciding body (English)
Supreme Court
Deciding body (Original)
Tribunal Supremo
Type of body
Court
Type of Court (material scope)
Labour Court
Type of jurisdiction
Single jurisdiction system
Type of Court (territorial scope)
State Court
Instance
Supreme court, Cassation (Review)
Area
Industrial relations / Labor law
Outcome of the decision
Claim inadmissible or rejected
Link to the full text of the decision
Decision_ES available on poderjudicial.es

Case analisys

General Summary

The Supreme Court had to decide whether a company was required to pay its employees bonuses and allowances that corresponded to the time the establishment was closed due to the pandemic. The main issue consisted in determining whether the company could be exonerated from said obligation despite it not having suspended the contracts within the framework of Temporary Redundancy Proceedings (ERTE).

Facts of the case

The company was closed from March 15, 2020 to June 24, 2020 due to the pandemic. Beginning on April 12, the company offered its employees paid leave. The employees, nevertheless, still claimed several bonuses and allowances which were not paid during that period (production premium, maintenance allowance, night shift bonuses, split shift bonus, housing allowance, distance allowance and compensation for differences in rentals). The Audiencia Nacional (National Court) (139/2021, June 17) concluded that employees had the right to receive bonuses and allowances claimed because they were not in ERTE (Temporary Redundancy Proceedings), which would have allowed a suspension of contracts and, therefore, no obligation to pay those amounts. The company then lodged a cassation appeal before the Supreme Court against that judicial decision.

Type of measure challenged
Private measure (labor law)
Measures, actions, remedies claimed
Annulment of the judgment granting the employees of the company bonuses and allowances corresponding to the time when the establishment was closed due to the pandemic
Individual / collective enforcement
Individual action brought by one or more individuals or legal persons exclusively in their own interest.
Nature of the parties
  • Claimant(s)
    Private individual
  • Defendant(s)
    Private collective
Type of procedure
Ordinary procedures
Reasoning of the deciding body

The Court began by recalling that the company could have appealed to Temporary Redundancy Proceedings (ERTE). Although the claimant argued temporary force majeure which, in his opinion, justified the failure to make bonus and allowance payments to the staff, the Court did not accept the argument. Force majeure permits a suspension of employee contracts following a legally established procedure (ERTE). However, since the company did not make use of that option, it also renounced the legal possibilities that it offered. As a consequence, the labor contracts remained in force, so employees maintained their right to receive their salary with all its complements. The Court highlighted that the main issue did not consist in deciding whether the closure of the establishment was due to force majeure. Since it was not correctly channeled through the suspension procedure, it did not exonerate the company from its obligation to pay salaries and bonuses.

Conclusions of the deciding body

The Court concluded that the employees of the company had the right to receive their bonuses and allowances corresponding to the time when the establishment was closed due to the pandemic.

Balancing Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

Fundamental Right(s) involved
  • Freedom to conduct a business
  • Right to work
Fundamental Right(s) instruments (constitutional provisions, international conventions and treaties)
Right to collective dispute, Art. 17, Spanish Constitution
Rights and freedoms specifically identified as (possibly) conflicting with the right to health
  • Health v. economic freedoms
  • right to work
General principle applied
Rule of law
Author of the case note
Professor Patricia Garcia Majado, Assistant Professor of Constitutional Law, Oviedo University
Published by Marco Nicolò on 25 October 2022

More cases from Spain

  • Spain, Constitutional Court, 2 June 2022, Judgment 70/2022
    Area: Scope of powers of public authorities (legislative, executive etc.)
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to an effective remedy
    Outcome: Claim upheld
  • Spain, Galicia High Court of Justice, 23 May 2022, Judgement 198/2022
    Area: Privacy and data protection
    Fundamentals rights involved: Freedom of information; Right to data protection; Right to privacy
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • Spain, Asturias High Court, 18 April 2022, Judgement 356/2022
    Area: Education
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to bodily integrity; Right to education
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • Spain, Lugo Administrative Court (No. 1), 11 February 2022, Judgement 24/2022
    Area: Industrial relations / Labor law
    Outcome: Claim upheld
  • Spain, Supreme Court, 22 February 2022, Judgement 168/2022
    Area: Industrial relations / Labor law
    Fundamentals rights involved: Freedom to conduct a business; Other (Right to work)
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • Spain, Jerez de la Frontera Labor Court (No. 3), 13 May 2022, Judgement 232/2022
    Area: Industrial relations / Labor law
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to bodily integrity; Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health)
    Outcome: Claim upheld
  • Load 6 more
List all available cases from Spain

Breadcrumb

  1. Home
  2. Case Index
  3. Spain, Supreme Court, 19 May 2022, Judgment 462/2022
home

This project and its database have been made possible with the financial support from the World Health Organization

www.covid19litigation.org is run and maintained by the University of Trento
Via Calepina 14, I-38122 Trento (Italy) — P. Iva/C.F. IT-00340520220

Social Media Links

  • twitter
  • linkedin

Terms of use

www.covid19litigation.org
Site purpose

This site is for informational use only. Case law summaries are not legal advices and may not be relied on as such. Anyone seeking for legal advice should obtain appropriate legal counsel.

Site operation

This site may not be fully up-to-date (for example, cases may be reviewed, reversed, or appealed). This site may be taken down at any time without notice. The case law summaries provided on this site may be incomplete or outdated.

Copyright

Any files provided on this site were taken from a source that is, to the University of Trento and its Partners' best knowledge, from a freely available public resource, however, any further use of such files is at the user’s responsibility.

Responsibility

This site is maintained by the University of Trento, with financial support from the World Health Organization (WHO). The University of Trento will not be responsible for any use of the site.

No endorsement

Inclusion of a case on the website does not necessarily involve a view, position, or endorsement by the University of Trento or the WHO, including with respect to any legal matter. The site is not a product of WHO and does not necessarily reflect the views or positions of the WHO.

User account menu

  • Log in

Footer menu

  • Contacts
  • Terms of use
  • Privacy
  • Cookies