October 23, 2020

The Supreme Court condemns Banco Sabadell for “discrimination” and forces it to equate a plus in paternity and maternity leave


The Supreme Court concludes that Banco Sabadell’s variable remuneration system, denounced by the GBS (Fine) Cuadros union, is discriminatory on the grounds of sex and thus confirms the previous conviction in this regard by the National High Court. The origin of the inequality lies in the fact that the mechanism penalized absences derived from paternity leave, but not those linked to maternity leave, which the High Court concludes that “implies a clear disincentive for the total or partial enjoyment of parental leave. paternity, “which” perpetuates the position of women as the sole responsible for domestic tasks and for the care and attention of children, which is a clear discrimination based on sex, “reads the sentence.

Justice confirms Renfe's sentence for reducing a salary bonus due to maternity and paternity leave

Justice confirms Renfe’s sentence for reducing a salary bonus due to maternity and paternity leave

Know more

Sources from Banco Sabadell explain that, although the entity filed the appeal before the Supreme Court, it had already internally modified the compensation system after the conviction of the National Court in December 2018, equating paternity and maternity absences. The High Court now reiterates the condemnation of the bank, in such a way that it obliges it to make this modification in any case.

The Cuadros GBS union, which is part of Fine, filed the lawsuit with Banco Sabadell because it considered that the fact that the payment of the objectives is affected by the absences of paternity leave implied discrimination for those who exercise this right and that it conditioned your exercise. Banco Sabadell, for its part, appealed against the conviction, considering that paternity and maternity leave were not comparable, “neither are they identifiable or respond to the same needs,” so they did not have to have the same treatment.

The Supreme Court again agrees with the union part and considers that the remuneration system is discriminatory. The Social Chamber of the Supreme Court, with magistrate Ángel Antonio Blasco Pellicer as rapporteur, argues that “it is true that the situations and the corresponding maternity and paternity benefits are not exactly the same nor do they respond to the protection of the same legal rights in any case “, but what they must analyze in this case is whether the variable remuneration system of the bank’s objectives” is in accordance with the Organic Law of Equality “and” if there is a position or regulation that encourages exclusive or priority dedication from women to domestic tasks and the exclusion of men from them, which would make it legally inadmissible “.

And this is what happens, the magistrates conclude. The fact that absences from paternity leave penalized, like common sick leave, in the collection of variable remuneration by objectives “implies a clear disincentive for the total or partial enjoyment of paternity leave, which in the end perpetuates the position of women as the only person responsible for household chores and the care and attention of children, which is a clear discrimination based on sex, “the ruling includes.

The judges recall that “the right to equality between men and women clearly includes the achievement of a balanced distribution of family responsibilities in the care of children, which, in the assumption we are analyzing, is seriously compromised by the existence of a regulation that, as has been proven, prevents paternity leave holders from enjoying it without resulting in any type of damage or negative remuneration consequence “.

The ruling underlines, as the Supreme Court itself said in a ruling of January 10, 2017, that “workers who have taken parental leave cannot be in a disadvantageous position compared to workers who do not take parental leave. have accepted such permission “, which is what happens in the present case.

The Cuadros GBS union has celebrated the sentence in a statement, although it regrets “having had to go to this extreme to demand fair, equal and non-discriminatory treatment.

.



Source link