The unions UGT and CCOO expressed mixed emotions this Tuesday upon learning of the appealable ruling issued by a Social Court in Santa Cruz de Tenerife concerning the collective dispute claim submitted by these very worker organisations (with a court session taking place on 9 July) which centred on the potential illegality of the so-called “personal supplement” as governed by article 36 of the collective agreement for hotels, restaurants, and bars within Tenerife.
This verdict partially supports the collective dispute claim by declaring that the aforementioned article 36 within the current hospitality agreement in the province of Santa Cruz de Tenerife contradicts the equality principle (article 14 of the Spanish Constitution) and, as a result, annuls it, rendering it ineffective, without influencing the rest of the agreement. However, the ruling overlooks the initial claim made by the plaintiff unions, UGT and CCOO, which asserted “the entitlement of employees hired after 1 January 1995 to receive the sums detailed in the annex to the agreement as a ‘personal supplement’ (seniority tables), in accordance with the principle of equal remuneration.”
Consequently, this verdict can only be regarded as a partial success for the unions UGT and CCOO, who challenged the collective agreement and are significant representatives within the hospitality sector, although they do not hold an absolute majority; this dominion lies with Sindicalistas de Base in the province of Tenerife, an organisation that emerged and developed from a fracture in the leadership of CCOO within this region.
The ruling from the Social Court clearly falls short of addressing the principal demand of the plaintiff unions, which indicates that the quest for resolution of this matter surrounding seniority remains active through collective negotiation, amongst other potential avenues, to endeavour to reinstate this remuneration aspect that was previously removed by CCOO and UGT, during a time when some individuals now at the helm of Sindicalistas de Base led CCOO.
This is the position advocated by the spokesperson for Intersindical Canaria, Ignacio Rodríguez, which is deemed the most sensible approach after the issuance of the ruling. Thus, from his union, which is not a significant player in the provincial hospitality industry but does possess delegates and company committees within this domain, he advocates “the essential unity of action of the unions to mobilise the workforce in this struggle.”
Context of the legal proceedings
The hearing for this legal process occurred on 9 July at a Social Court in Santa Cruz de Tenerife, following the filing of a collective dispute claim by UGT and CCOO regarding the removal of the “seniority supplement” from the collective agreement for hotels, restaurants, and bars in the province of Tenerife, which was signed in 1995. This agreement covered all employees with contracts in companies established after 1 January of that year and was substituted by the so-called “personal supplement” for employment relationships commenced before that date.
This decision, which received approval from CCOO with backing from employers’ associations, established two distinct employment conditions within the workforce: one for individuals with contracts prior to 1 January 1995, who retained the new “personal supplement” (which replaced the “seniority supplement”), and another for people who joined businesses after 1 January 2015, to whom this supplement no longer applied, thus eliminating that income from their payroll, an aspect that the current ruling does not address since it does not mandate the recovery of those sums.
The first group received higher compensation, essentially benefiting from this system (albeit they too faced disadvantages by being denied access to new seniority levels, which would have granted increased wages), while the latter group earned less, suffering the greatest detriment.
This compensation scheme, implemented in 2015, was flagged as discriminatory due to its breach of the equality principle established by the Spanish Constitution. This formed the core argument put forth by the unions challenging it, initially UGT, later joined by CCOO, a decision made this time by the latter union without the leaders who had previously backed the removal of the “seniority supplement”, many of whom now lead Sindicalistas de Base.
