Supreme Court overturns part of supermarket contract that forced ETT workers to pay 10% more

Social room in Supreme Court annulled the part in the judgment of April 11 collective agreement for supermarkets and convenience stores of Catalonia, considering it to have caused “serious damage” to temporary employment agencies (TTE).

The employment contract, concluded between the employer and the union, was in force from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2019. It stated, among other things, that workers hired by ETT and which provide services to companies associated with the said contract they had to receive a salary corresponding to their position “increased with a possible bonus of 10%”. The parties justified the inclusion of this supplement on the pretext that it would reduce insecurity and temporary employment in the sector.

In addition, they obliged the ETT itself to provide copies of contracts concluded with companies in order to detect possible fraudulent use of certain types employment.

Employer of ETT, unemploymentappealed the agreement on February 18, 2019, stating that these claims represent “illegitimate restriction” and violated the rights of workers, companies and users. They also argued that neither Spanish nor European legislation supports measures of this nature. Moreover, when ETT could not sit down to negotiate an agreement that hurt them.

Despite the fact that the courts initially rejected his appeals, the appeal before the Supreme Court managed to succeed. Judge Antonio V. Sempere supported the explanations of Asemple, who challenged the agreement.

As stated in the judgment, the judge considers that this plus of 10% was imposed on the ETT “This deprives temporary employment agencies of the possibility of remunerating assigned staff under the same conditions as user companies”. It is an additional cost that “disincentivizes” the formalization of the contract. The problem, therefore, is not in the increase in income, but in the fact that this increase does not apply to all categories of workers who provide services.

The Supreme Court considers that salary changes cost money “negatively affects the rights of ETT” There is no evidence that this damage resulted in higher employment and better quality. In addition, it “seriously” harms these companies and “clearly” harms free competition.

The ruling therefore annuls both obligations: the one to present copies of all contracts signed with companies in the sector and the one to reward its staff with an additional 10% when providing services in supermarkets.