The Hearing rejects an appeal from CC.OO. and UGT to exclude other unions from an institutional body




The National Court has issued a ruling in which it rejects an appeal from CC.OO. and UGT to exclude other unions from the Sustainable Development Council by claiming that these organizations did not meet the necessary representativeness criteria to participate in this body dependent on the Ministry of Social Rights and Agenda 2030.

In the ruling mentioned by the CSIF union, the National Court believes that it is “inadmissible” to use the criterion of greater representativeness – unions that have 10% representation at the national level to exclude other organizations that do not reach that percentage at the institutional level. that, however, are implanted in a specific area.

Along these lines, the National High Court makes a review of different rulings of the Constitutional Court that contradict the claim of the UGT and CC.OO. Regarding the concept of “the greatest representativeness”, the judge warns that “not every use made of it is constitutionally acceptable and it is not that which uses the selective criteria to establish a different treatment” depending on the matter to be treated .

Consequently, the National Court understands “reasonable that the presence in each sphere of action of the general interests and of the workers as a whole is ensured and that the purpose of the norm or union representation be examined in each case.”

In this sense, it adds that greater union representation does not absolutely prevent other unions that do not reach 10% at the national level from exercising institutional participation functions in those consultative or advisory bodies in order to promote the participation of the groups and organizations affected by public action.

The sentence also warns that a reductionist interpretation of the criteria for participation to prevent the presence of other organizations “would be contrary to the right to freedom of association and union pluralism guaranteed by article 28 of the Constitution.

For its part, CSIF denounces that “it is usually normal practice” of CC.OO. and UGT try to prevent the presence of other unions like yours in institutional bodies appealing to the criterion of representativeness at the national level. “These arguments of the National High Court support the need to modify the Organic Law on Freedom of Association, as claimed by CSIF, which recalls that it is a rule dating from 1985 and that” shields the institutional participation of CC.OO. and UGT to the detriment of other union options »criticize from CSIF.

“We demand the modification of this rule so that 5% of representativeness is sufficient to be present in the negotiation areas, as occurs in the parliamentary sphere, where only between 3 and 5% is required”, they add from the organization union.

Unequal treatment in Altadis

In this sense, CSIF recalls another judgment of the National High Court published on September 7 in which it was condemned the “abuse of the power of the UGT and CC.OO.” in Altadis. The judge thus annulled part of his collective agreement for discriminating against CSIF in the management of the company’s social benefits.

In this case, the Social Chamber considered it proven that CSIF received “unequal treatment” compared to the other two unions without any “objective and reasonable justification,” argues CSIF. “In addition, the Altadis collective bargaining did not respect the” indeclinable demands of the right to equality and non-discrimination and the right to freedom of association, “they criticize from CSIF.

See them


Source link