June 15, 2021

The National Court condemns Glovo to pay a 50,000 euro fine for obstructing the Labor Inspection


Glovo obstructed the work of the Labor Inspectorate in its investigation of the labor model in the province of Vizcaya, which concluded like many others that its delivery men were false self-employed. This is confirmed by the National Court, in a sentence against which there is no appeal, which has been consulted by elDiario.es and has advanced Five Days. “The conduct that is declared proven in the account of the facts of this sentence, involves a clear will of those responsible for the plaintiff company to obstruct the inspection performance,” the ruling collects. However, the court reduces the fine imposed by Work in half, from 100,006 euros to the 50,000 euros agreed by the court.


Six years, 18,000 false self-employed persons detected and almost 50 convictions later: the Rider Law arrives

Six years, 18,000 false self-employed persons detected and almost 50 convictions later: the Rider Law arrives

Know more

The magistrates of the National Court have analyzed the attitude of the company founded in Barcelona by Oscar Pierre with the Labor Inspectorate, after Glovo’s appeal to the act of infraction imposed by the labor authority. The Inspection concluded that the riders of Glovo were false freelancers, as recently confirmed by a Bilbao court, for which he demanded from the company in a settlement act the unpaid fees for these almost 300 couriers. In addition, Trabajo imposed a fine of 100,006 euros on the multinational in an infringement act for hindering its investigation.

Specifically, the Labor Inspectorate awards Glovo a very serious infraction in labor relations, for failing to comply with “the duties of collaboration with the officials of the Labor Inspection and Social Security system.” The National Court confirms this irregular conduct of the company, co-directed by Pierre and Sacha Michaud.

Glovo did not report the time slots of the riders

Glovo did not provide the labor authority with information expressly requested on repeated occasions, even formally through requests, about the time slots in which the delivery men were operating. These data have “special significance with regard to the figures resulting from the liquidation act carried out.” The omission of Gloco data made it impossible to “take into account all the periods in which each delivery person was at the disposal of the company (working time)”, relevant for the claim of unpaid social contributions and for the official registration of employees. workers.

“There is not the slightest doubt about the obstructionist conduct observed by the company. This conduct is described in the factual account, based on the act issued by the Labor Inspection, whose content has in no way been distorted by any of the evidence provided by the plaintiff “, picks up the ruling, of which Judge Emilia Ruiz-Jarabo has been a speaker.

After analyzing the facts and listening to the parties, the judges confirm that Glovo did not provide the Labor and Social Security Inspectorate with “documentation with the specific (and complete) data expressly requested on multiple occasions by the acting Inspectors” and “neither in any At the time, the company claimed that it was unable to have such information, that it had not been registered. “Simply, said information was omitted in the successive remissions of requested documentation,” says the sentence.

The magistrates agree with the Inspection in the qualification of the infraction, very serious, but within this type of irregularity they lower the graduation of the offense. The Ministry of Labor imposed a fine of 100,006 euros, considering the maximum degree (which can reach up to 187,515 euros). On the other hand, the National High Court imposes a fine of 50,000 euros, on the understanding that –although there was obstruction by the company– “at the discretion of the Chamber, it has not been proven that there had been a persistent opposition to the delivery of all the requested documentation “.

The judges consider that it must “be taken into account that the company did not have all the data”, something that it did not claim at the time, and that at this time time registration was not mandatory. In this way, the obstructionist conduct “has not been full and persistent,” understands the Court, which finally reduces the fine by half.

.



Source link