Publication: Interacción entre el derecho de la Unión Europea y el derecho nacional en la configuración jurídica y en los efectos laborales de la sucesión empresarial
Loading...
Files
Official URL
Full text at PDC
Publication Date
2018-06-20
Authors
Advisors (or tutors)
Editors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Universidad Complutense de Madrid
Citations
Exportar
Abstract
El objetivo tanto del Derecho de la Unión como el del nacional, es que los derechos de los trabajadores afectados por una sucesión empresarial, no se vean impactados por el mero hecho de la transmisión. La presente tesis doctoral se centra en la interacción entre dichos ordenamientos, poniendo de manifiesto ciertas discrepancias en los dos aspectos analizados por el trabajo, tanto en la configuración jurídica de la sucesión como en los efectos laborales. Una divergencia en cuanto al configuración jurídica es que el ordenamiento nacional pide como requisito una transmisión de título, mientras el comunitario se centra en la continuidad de la entidad económica, aunque no haya transmisión de título, esta diferencia conlleva a que, en España, las sucesiones en las contrataciones de servicios y la externalización sin título, no estén amparadas bajo la protección del ET, cuando en la Unión sí que están bajo la Directiva. Otra divergencia es que a nivel comunitario se da cobijo a la sucesión de plantilla independientemente del motivo por el que el cesionario se haga cargo de los trabajadores, mientras que en España únicamente ocurre si la subrogación del cesionario es voluntaria. Una tercera discrepancia es la sucesión de la entidad económica al hacerse cargo el empresario entrante, de suficientes activos, conllevando la subrogación de los contratos de trabajo, esta sucesión no tiene cabida actualmente en España. En cuanto a los efectos laborales, las divergencias radican: 1) en los límites a la aplicabilidad del convenio colectivo del cedente, la Directiva establece cuatro límites obligatorios y uno opcional, de los cuales se han transpuesto dos. Uno de los obligatorios no transpuestos es el de la entrada de aplicación de otro convenio colectivo que sería clave para los tipos de negocio que se dan entre distintos sectores, ya que permitiría aplicar el convenio colectivo del cesionario desde el día de la transmisión; 2) al no reconocer la sucesión de plantilla por nacer de una obligación convencional, los trabajadores tienen el amparo que establezca el convenio colectivo en cuestión, y no el que establece el artículo 44 ET, aunque se transfiera el 100 por cien de la plantilla, además se estaría acordando como impacta la sucesión algo que no permite el ordenamiento jurídico comunitario; y 3) en cuanto al tratamiento del ius variandi, nuestra doctrina mantiene que se ve reducido a través del artículo 44.9 ET mientras que el ordenamiento jurídico comunitario mantiene que el cesionario puede llevar a cabo las mismas acciones que podría haber llevado el cedente antes de la transmisión.
The EU legal system and the Spanish legal system are aimed at protecting a business' employees in the event of a change of employer, ensuring that the employees' rights are safeguarded and prevent transferred workers from being placed, by reason only of the transfer, in a less favorable position than they were in before the transfer. This study is focused on the interaction between both legal systems on two specific aspects, the concept of the transfer and its impact on the labor terms and conditions, highlighting some relevant gaps on these two aspects. The difference on the transfer itself is that the Spanish system is requiring an ownership transfer, while the EU law looks at the economic entity’s identity to see if it’s maintained after the transfer despite of the ownership. This means that contracting out services and subsequence contracts are not included on the Spanish scope. This discrepancy involves further disagreements: 1) Directive applies if the staff taken on by the subcontractor is an essential part of the economic entity, in certain labour-intensive sectors, no matter the reason to take on the staff, while in the Spanish system ARD applies only if they are taken on, on voluntary basis. 2) Directive applies if the tangible assets and equipment taken on by the service agreement provider are essential part of the economic entity, while in the Spanish law these situations are not in scope. Regarding the impact on labor terms and conditions, there are three discrepancies between both legal systems: 1) Directive establishes four mandatory limits plus another optional one to discontinue to observe the transferor collective agreement’s terms and conditions. Out of which, two have been transposed into the Spanish law. One of the mandatory limits not transposed is the entry into application of another collective agreement, which is key for the cross-sector transfer of undertakings, as it allows to apply the transferee’s collective agreement since the transfer’s day. 2) If the staff taken on by the subcontractor is an essential part of the economic entity, no matter the reason to take on the staff, the Directive fully applies, while Spanish system only provides the employees the guarantees agreed on the CBA, if transfer is based on a CBA. Therefore, unions and employer’s organization are reaching agreements despite this protection should be a public policy matter 3) Spanish authors conclude that standard national non-substantial change in working conditions process is limited if there is a transfer of undertakings, while the UE law allows the transferee to take the same action that the transferor could have taken.
The EU legal system and the Spanish legal system are aimed at protecting a business' employees in the event of a change of employer, ensuring that the employees' rights are safeguarded and prevent transferred workers from being placed, by reason only of the transfer, in a less favorable position than they were in before the transfer. This study is focused on the interaction between both legal systems on two specific aspects, the concept of the transfer and its impact on the labor terms and conditions, highlighting some relevant gaps on these two aspects. The difference on the transfer itself is that the Spanish system is requiring an ownership transfer, while the EU law looks at the economic entity’s identity to see if it’s maintained after the transfer despite of the ownership. This means that contracting out services and subsequence contracts are not included on the Spanish scope. This discrepancy involves further disagreements: 1) Directive applies if the staff taken on by the subcontractor is an essential part of the economic entity, in certain labour-intensive sectors, no matter the reason to take on the staff, while in the Spanish system ARD applies only if they are taken on, on voluntary basis. 2) Directive applies if the tangible assets and equipment taken on by the service agreement provider are essential part of the economic entity, while in the Spanish law these situations are not in scope. Regarding the impact on labor terms and conditions, there are three discrepancies between both legal systems: 1) Directive establishes four mandatory limits plus another optional one to discontinue to observe the transferor collective agreement’s terms and conditions. Out of which, two have been transposed into the Spanish law. One of the mandatory limits not transposed is the entry into application of another collective agreement, which is key for the cross-sector transfer of undertakings, as it allows to apply the transferee’s collective agreement since the transfer’s day. 2) If the staff taken on by the subcontractor is an essential part of the economic entity, no matter the reason to take on the staff, the Directive fully applies, while Spanish system only provides the employees the guarantees agreed on the CBA, if transfer is based on a CBA. Therefore, unions and employer’s organization are reaching agreements despite this protection should be a public policy matter 3) Spanish authors conclude that standard national non-substantial change in working conditions process is limited if there is a transfer of undertakings, while the UE law allows the transferee to take the same action that the transferor could have taken.
Description
Tesis inédita de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Facultad de Derecho, Departamento de Derecho del Trabajo y de la Seguridad Social, leída el 12-09-2017