The company is not obliged to provide information protected by data protection legislation in the basic copy provided to the workers’ representatives, such as the one referring to the wages of each of the workers, as established by the Supreme Court, in judgment of May 26, 2021.

The company is not obliged to provide information protected by data protection legislation in the basic copy of the contract provided to the workers’ representatives, such as the one referring to the wages of each of the workers, as established by the Supreme Court , in judgment of May 26, 2021.

The sentence follows the jurisprudence of the Social and Contentious-Administrative Chamber itself, collected by the National Court, in a judgment of. October 18, 2019, considering that data that is not reflected in the original contracts cannot appear in the basic copy of the contracts.

In the judgment of May 26, Judge Ureste García establishes the criterion that “the employer must deliver a copy. Therefore, he is not obliged to supply data other than those that appear in the original document. Furthermore, if it did so, it would not fulfill the precept. “

The reservation of the data provided by the company, also has an eminently reserved nature. Thus, the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid, in a judgment of January 20, 2021, determines that it is illegal to present in a judicial procedure of individual objective dismissal as documentary evidence of basic copies of work contracts of other colleagues, delivered promptly by the Company to the Company Committee in strict compliance with the existing regulations so that they can exercise the functions of surveillance and control of compliance with labor regulations by the employer.

Thus, the judgment condemns the Company Committee for failing to comply with the duty of secrecy, considering that it does not derive from the reserved nature established by the company when delivering the contracts to the labor representatives, but from the duty of confidentiality of the identifying personal data. by express legal provision.

Limits to requests
In the Contentious Administrative jurisdiction, in a ruling of February 9, 2021, the Supreme Court has established that the right to freedom of association does not cover any type of request for information and documentation. Among these data, the representation of the workers raised the obligation of the employer to provide data such as the contracts of all employees, their typology or the individualized start date of each one.

The union delegates considered that the defense of trade union freedom unambiguously protects the delivery of the aforementioned documentation in accordance with the provisions of article 10.3.1 of the Organic Law on Freedom of Association (LOLS).

On the contrary, according to Alfredo Aspra, labor lawyer, the Employer Administration maintained and based its refusal on the fact that it exceeded the limits of the right to information contained in the labor regulations, invading the right to data protection of the workers (Article 18 of the Spanish Constitution (CE).

The personal data given to the committee does not serve as judicial evidence
The personal data given to the committee does not serve as judicial evidence

The rapporteur, Judge Requero Ibañez determined that the right to collect information through lists of statutory appointments of all physicians by service, specifying the type and start date of service provision, including in that record both appointments by accumulation tasks such as substitutions and other non-structural positions cannot be understood under the generic faculty attributed to the Staff Boards and even less to the recurring unions.

Data without specification
The purpose of verification through knowledge of the data collected, can be achieved regardless of the identification of the people who occupy the specific jobs. And if what is sought is to assess the application of the criteria for assigning staff to those positions, the information must refer to the specific person who occupies a certain position, if there is a complaint reported to the Personnel Board.

The Supreme Court has defined, however, that the obligation to provide adequate information cannot be understood satisfactorily completed with the mere and simple contribution of a multitude of documents that lack a correct explanation of their content and an efficient presentation of the incidence that these data must have in the measures that the company intends to apply, to the point of making them unmanageable and practically unintelligible for the representation of the workers.

Thus, in the judgment of June 26, 2018, Judge Moralo Gallego affirms that “it is not only the number and quantity of documents provided, but also the quality of the information contained therein, since what is involved is that the workers’ representatives effectively have all the necessary information so that the consultation period can be carried out in accordance with the rules of good faith.

By admin

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *