The employer considers that the amendment agreed between Labor and Bildu is a “betrayal” of the agreement reached on labor reform
The employer CEOE broke communication with him Ministry of Labour to understand it “cheating and contrary to good faith” after the amendment, agree with Bildu, on the control of Labor inspection causes in collective redundancies (ARE YOU).
In a stern statement, the CEOE considers that the settlement amendment is a “betrayal” of the agreement reached in the labor reform and calls for a recovery in order to be able to renew the dialogue at the end of the year marked by key issues such as the increase in the interprofessional minimum wage (SMI).
“To the extent that this issue has been discussed in the work of the labor reform, and cancel by mutual agreement for the sake of consensus, the execution of the Ministry by modifying E. H. Bildu This supposes a breach of the good faith of negotiation which obliges the parties to respect and defend the agreements reached, ”adds the note.
This action, they point out, “invalidates the Ministry of Labour as a reliable interlocutor.
Pending a recovery, they point out, “Spanish businessmen refuse dialogue with the Ministry of Labour to understand him to be cheating and contrary to good faith”.
The CEOE will wait for this correction Work and will see at the board meeting on December 21 how to handle this situation with relevant open trading tables such as the SMI, pensions or stock exchange status.
In its press release, the employers also warn that this modification “aims to intervene in the decisions of companies, it is contrary to the Constitution and the right to free enterprise and contravenes European regulations”.
Without reintroducing prior authorization
Work Yes picture agreed, via an amendment in the Labor law, a modification of the status of workers so that the labor inspectorate draws up a report on each YOU ARE in which the concordance of the causes indicated by the company to allege the collective dismissal is verified.
This change, which will be enshrined in law through an amendment to the Article 51.2 of the Workers’ Statute, It does not imply a recovery of the administrative authorization of the ERE prior to the labor reform of 2012, but an increased role for the Inspectorate in the control of these collective redundancies.
In the middle of last October, the Minister of Labor and Social Economy, Yolanda Diaz, advanced in an act Sabadell that a regulatory amendment in this regard was being finalized. “We have changed the standard so that the labor inspectorate is the one that controls the causes that give rise to a file,” he said on that date.
At this moment, Diaz excluded the restoration of the administrative authorization of the YOU ARE which existed before the labor reform of the PP and which gave the last word on these files to the autonomous administrations.
Prior administrative authorization has already been collected during the pandemic for ERTE By force majeure.
Díaz assures CEOE was aware of ERE inspection plans
Diaz replied this Wednesday to CEOE that the control by the Labor Inspectorate of the causes of collective dismissals (ERE) is a measure that the Government included a year ago in the strategic plan for the modernization of the Inspectorate.
Speaking to journalists before taking part in the presentation of a book on dad francisco, Diaz refers to the statement of CEOE. In this sense, he argued that employers, like unions, Do you know this measurement? because in November last year the government presented a new strategic plan to modernize labor inspection in the Council of Ministers.
“What is the problem of the labor inspectorate acting in the examination of the causes that motivate collective redundancies if everything is done well?” Asked the vice-president before emphasizing that the employer “will not put any obstacle” to this inspection since he always defends the legality.
He also denied that the measure was debated and rejected as part of labor reform work. “It’s not true, it has never been a question of it in the labor reform, what is being said is not true”, he specified before insisting on the fact that “both M . Garamendi because the unions know what was approved more than a year ago.