Brussels, 15/05/2015 (Agence Europe) - The European Court of Justice explained in a ruling issued on Wednesday 13 May in case C392/13 that Spanish legislation lays obstacles in the path of the information and consultation procedures set out in EU Directive 98/59 on collective redundancies.
Andres Rabal Canas worked for hybrid courier company Nexea and challenged his dismissal in 2012 under Spanish law on the grounds that Nexea did not apply the proper collective redundancy procedure.
Under Spanish legislation, a redundancy is considered collective where contracts of employment are terminated on economic, technical or organisational grounds and where, over a period of 90 days, such termination affects at least 10% of the number of workers in undertakings employing between 100 and 300 workers. During a period of fewer than 90 days, Nexea dismissed 13 members of staff from its Barcelona unit and did not renew 5 fixed term contracts (3 in Madrid and 2 in Barcelona).
The Court of Justice explains in its ruling that “where an undertaking comprises several entities, it is the entity to which the workers made redundant are assigned to carry out their duties that constitutes the 'establishment' for the purposes of the directive. Therefore, the number of dismissals effected in each distinct establishment of the undertaking must be taken into consideration” (cf ruling C-182/13 in the Lyttle et al case). The Court says that the Spanish legislation “that introduces the undertaking and not the establishment as the sole reference unit is contrary to the directive where the effect of the application of that criterion is to preclude the information and consultation procedure provided for in the directive, when the dismissals would have been considered 'collective redundancy' had the establishment been used as the reference unit.”
Nevertheless, the Court of Justice said that in the case in question, the directive does not apply since Nexea did not employ more than 20 workers at the end of 2012. “As regards the question relating to whether contracts concluded for limited periods of time or for specific tasks are to be taken into consideration, the Court points out that (...) for the purposes of establishing whether 'collective redundancies', within the meaning of the directive, have been effected, there is no need to take into account individual terminations of such contracts.” (Mathieu Bion)