They condemn the trade union CC.OO. for violating the right to strike of its staff in Galicia

The Workers’ Council of the High Court of Xustiza de Galicia (TSXG) condemned the National Union of Workers’ Commissions (CC.OO.) in Galicia due to violation of the fundamental right to strike about fifteen workers, among them lawyers and graduated social workers, who were ordered by the union in writing to end the suspension of work and fulfill all their obligations in the ongoing proceedings in order not to harm the members and other workers they represent. Consequently, it forces the plant to compensate each of the employees with 25,000 euros plaintiffs, represented by lawyer Catarina Capeáns, from Vento Abogados y Asesores.

The conflict dates back to the end of last January, when the CC.OO workers. in Galicia they started a strike demanding the renewal of the collective agreement and an increase in their wages, which had been practically frozen for nine years. Three days before the start of the protest, the employees of the legal service (labor lawyers and graduated social workers) received an e-mail from the union leadership inviting them to request the suspension of pending cases before various courts. After receiving different responses from various courts (some rejected the suspension, others transferred it to other parties, and one of them ordered the appointment of a new lawyer), the union sent a fax to the strikers warning the workers of their “professional obligation” to follow all those matters in which the suspension was not accepted, i.e. it required the lawyer to attend each hearing or procedure already mentioned, but also to “study, compile documents and present them” in those cases whose term expired during the strike.

The Board of the Commission warned that, otherwise, the workers will bear possible professional responsibilities in the collegial sphere, labor (due to neglect of obligations), and even civil, “for the damage caused to the users of their defense services who deliberately and willfully neglected”.

Faced with what they perceived to be a threat, the workers returned to their jobs, even taking over the duties of other auxiliary officers who continued the strike. Then they filed a lawsuit for violation of the fundamental right to strike, demanding compensation of 120,000 euros for each of the injured parties.

The union opposed the workers’ request, claiming that in this case it was a conflict between two fundamental rights. It is a strike by workers against the right to effective judicial protection of users of legal services provided by these employees, who could be harmed by failure to attend any of the aforementioned procedures or failure to comply with any procedure within the time limit set by the courts. He asserted that it is an “essential service” and that it is up to the civil-administrative court, not the social order, to first determine that aspect before deciding on the demand for labor.

However, the judges of the TSXG Chamber of Labor rejected this argument, reasoning that “the defendant company is not the holder of the right to effective judicial protection of third parties who may be affected by the strike (…) so that the power to exercise or protect rights cannot be usurped which he is not the owner of and over which he more than doubts that he has any power of disposal”. And the judges remind us that “every strike causes harm to third parties in a system of free enterprise such as ours, because it is precisely by conducting it that pressure is sought on the employer resulting from the lost profit that arises from the interruption of work activity”.

In their verdict, they assess that the request sent to the workers violates their right to strike, since the “order of business” is for the employees to return to their jobs, while the management mocks the union’s effort to determine a minimum of services whose determination does not suit it. And they point out that the warnings about possible labor and even civil legal consequences in the case of a continuation of the strike are “intimidation that, at the very least, is not in line with respecting the exercise of the right to strike”.

After the grounds of the lawsuit were accepted, the only thing the higher court did not recognize was the compensation requested by the plaintiffs, who requested 120,005 euros per injured person, claiming that this is the amount of the sanction provided for in the Law on Injuries and Sanctions in the Social Order in the case of a more serious offense by the employer due to violations of the right to strike, when it is pronounced at an intermediate level. However, the judges consider that “the proposed amount of compensation is excessive”, since the violation of the fundamental right lasted only two weeks, between 25 January and 9 February. For this reason, it determines compensation of 25,000 euros per person.

The sentence is not yet final, because an appeal can be filed with the Supreme Court within five days. From the direction of the trade union, they say that they intend to file an appeal in order to try to assert their argument before the higher court that in this case it was necessary to weigh the right to strike with the right to effective judicial protection of users of their legal defense services.