Special Labor Newsletter - Gender Equality - March 2021 | Judgments

The Supreme Court rules on the equality plan negotiating committee

In a recent ruling, applying the regulations prior to the entry into force of Royal Decree 901/2020, the Supreme Court has indicated that the negotiation of equality plans must be carried out by those entitled to negotiate collective bargaining agreements.  

By virtue of the above, the legal representatives or trade union representatives cannot be replaced by a workers' committee specifically created for such negotiation. The High Court emphasizes the special relevance that the legislator has given to equality plans, as well as the fact that the company is not authorised to impose an equality plan except in "limited" cases and when there are "exceptional circumstances". This pronouncement, prohibiting ad hoc commissions, is in line with the new regulations.

The negotiation of the equality plan is part of the essential content of trade union freedom

The High Court, in its judgment of 13 September 2018, declared that the negotiation of an equality plan forms part of the essential content of trade union freedom in its aspect of the right to collective bargaining.

In the case analysed, the Court concluded that the company must assume the negotiating momentum and cannot slow down or delay the negotiation or impose the plan without extraordinary circumstances justifying it.

The existence of a business succession cannot justify wage differences between men and women

The employee render services for a foundation that had been absorbed by another foundation and received a lower productivity bonus than her male colleagues. The foundation justified the difference by stating that it had merely respected the working conditions that the worker had at her previous employer, without any discrimination.

In this case, the High Court of Justice of the Canary Islands, confirming in its ruling that handed down by the Social Court No. 4 of Tenerife, has considered that the existence of a business succession cannot justify the maintenance of a discriminatory remuneration system, declaring that the successor company cannot limit itself to respecting the remuneration system of the previous company, but must correct any existing discrimination.