The Supreme Court has just resolved in several sentences how to affect the latest increases in the minimum wage.

And it has done so against what the workers and unions were asking for, denying that it can benefit those who already received a higher salary for all concepts in the annual calculation.

The Social Chamber explains that the "significant increases" in the SMI in recent years "have been raising doubts about the way in which they should have an impact on the income received by a large part of the active population."

Regarding the 2019 increase, for example, it was questioned whether the new amounts should be taken as "base salary" and "on them calculate the various supplements (seniority, hardship, dangerousness), as the literal wording of the SMI royal decree establishes ".

The answer, through three sentences, is negative.

The High Court concludes that "in order to achieve the effective perception of the guaranteed SMI, the provisions of the collective agreement must be met,

including the various salary supplements

".

Only if the lump sum of what is received does not reach the new SMI figure, the salary must be raised to that threshold.

The exception is only valid if "a rule with the force of law" establishes the contrary or if the applicable collective agreement itself indicates it "expressly".

The reason is that to interpret otherwise would mean breaching article 27 of the Workers' Statute, which establishes that "the review of the minimum interprofessional salary will not affect the structure or the amount of professional salaries when these, as a whole and calculated annually , were superior to that".

They add that it would also mean "dissolving the very concept of SMI, since it would end up being different for each group subject to conventional regulation, or even for each person (in view of their supplements of this nature)".

The Supreme explains that in the first of the recent unanimous rulings on the matter, it is established that what is charged for seniority supplement is part of the salary that must be compared with the new SMI.

The second sentence extends that rule to all salary supplements, even to what is charged per variable.

The third confirms the previous ones, specifying that what is outside the rule are non-salary payments.

Conforms to The Trust Project criteria

Know more

  • supreme court

  • minimum salary

  • Justice

Catalonia Judicial offensive to force the Generalitat to apply 25% of Spanish

JusticeThe Supreme Prosecutor's Office shelves the investigation of the King Emeritus

SpainThe Supreme inadmits the complaint against Belarra for accusing him of prevarication but asks for "prudence" instead of "offensive" words

See links of interest

  • Last News

  • Oscar Winners 2022

  • When does the 2021 Income start?

  • Income 2021

  • when is holy thursday

  • Easter 2022

  • Work calendar 2022

  • Economy Podcast

  • Panathinaikos - Real Madrid