In the basic copy of the contracts, the expression “according to the agreement” or the minimum wage of the collective agreement is valid, it is not mandatory that the actual agreed wage be entered.
The company provides workers’ representatives with basic copies of contracts in which, as far as wages are concerned, it only reproduces the content of the original contracts, which use “as agreed” or “as agreed” terms. In other cases, the wage is quantified, which coincides with the minimum wage in the agreement.
The union files a class action lawsuit in the National Court asking that the right be declared for the basic copy of the contracts to reflect the actual agreed wage, and the expression according to the agreement is not valid. He says there must be another written document stating the salary agreement that does not reflect the contract or the base copy. The lawsuit being rejected, the union lodges an appeal in cassation before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court dismisses the appeal and concludes that there is no data to support the existence of additional or modifying agreements to the contracts initially signed. Reiterating its doctrine, it considers that the company has fulfilled the responsibility of providing the copy with the basic data contained in these contracts. With this, it adjusts itself to the definition and the qualification of basic copy that the case law grants it: transfer or reproduction of a writing (contract) which collects its foundations and which in amteria salary is a faithful reflection of it.
The TS also rejects the suggestion of the prosecution, concerning the possibility of estimating the resource so that the RLT can know if the parameters of the salary relationship between men and women are respected, with the support of RDL 6/2019. She asserts that there is no evidence to support the claim that the company failed to comply with this requirement.
More information: Lefebvre