The company will no longer be obliged to negotiate an Employment Sustainability Mechanism (MSE) -the new Erte model that the Government wants to approve- , before opting for dismissals if, for any reason beyond the control of the company, its exercise. Thus, Work recoils from this claim that was proposed by the ministry of Yolanda Díaz at the beginning of this month.
In a new negotiation proposal of the Royal Decree-Law for the modernization of labor relations ( labor reform) presented last Wednesday to unions and employers , the Ministry of Labor has decided to delete point 8 of the new Article 47 bis of the Workers’ Statute that regulates this new tool that complements the current Erte regulated in article 47 of the ET.
Said point established that the MSE “will be preferred over terminations due to economic, technical, organizational or production reasons” and required the company that opted for dismissals without presenting an MSE “sufficiently motivate in the case of termination for these reasons that the The mechanism of this precept (MSE) is unfeasible to resolve in a proportionate and reasonable way the situation in which the company finds itself “.
The MSE is a complementary mechanism to the current Erte that allows companies to reduce the working hours of workers when, for reasons of an unpredictable nature, the activity could not be carried out normally in a workplace. In return, the government will create a fund dependent on the Sepe with contributions from employer and worker quotas and contributions from the State to cover part of the payroll (it will be regulated later by regulations) of the workers included in the mechanism.
As is currently the case with the Ertes, the company that chooses to avail itself of the benefits of the MSE must assume a commitment to maintain employment with respect to the people who are included in said mechanism for the sustainability of employment.
Likewise, overtime may not be done while it is in force, nor may new outsourcing of the activity be established, nor new direct or indirect hiring may be arranged. Possible sanctions will be included in future regulations.
The training contract
The document presented on Wednesday regulates in greater detail the new training contract that the Government has proposed. Unlike the previous proposal, the new training contract will be of two types: a contract for dual training, with a maximum duration of two years, and a training contract for obtaining a professional practice that may not exceed one year.
Dual training contract
The dual will be applied according to the levels of regulated training : vocational training, university training and vocational training for employment, including workshop schools and trade houses programs.
The Work proposal establishes that training contracts may not be entered into when the job has been previously performed through this modality in the company for a period of more than twelve months. Nor may training contracts be concluded with those people who have previously been hired, under any modality, by the company, for the same job.
No variations with the CEOE
The changes proposed this week by the Ministry of Labor at the table that debates changes in the Workers’ Statute (ET) are far from convincing employers. In the new negotiation draft delivered by Joaquín Pérez Rey, Secretary of State for Labor, this Wednesday the major issues that generate the greatest conflict between the representatives of the CEOE and Cepyme have been left out .
Alfredo Aspra, partner and head of the Andersen Labor Law Department, highlights some very specific red lines that paralyze the negotiation and that Work has not clearly softened in this new proposal.
In the case of dismissals, the Government intends to include in Article 55 a new point that establishes as null that of a person with a temporary contract “concluded regardless of the justifying reasons” for the temporary nature. Aspra stresses that it represents a 180 degree turn over current jurisprudence, which considers these dismissals as improper and not null.
A second point is the representativeness granted to the unions in the substantial modification of the working conditions regulated in article 41. When there is no legal representation of the workers, it will be negotiated with the unions that have a period of 15 days to decline. negotiate. That, in Aspra’s opinion, lengthens the process and reduces flexibility.
A third conflict arises from the lack of definition of the benefit that will be paid in the new MSE mechanism that relies on regulatory development. But at the table, Work does not give clues of what the help can be . It will depend on the funds available, they say.
But, without a doubt, the great conflict lies in the restrictions on temporary contracts , a new model that has led to the frontal rejection of CEOE-Cepyme . And in the new Work proposal, there are no changes in this section.
A conflict that has been aggravated by the decision of the Government to abolish the fixed work contract used in construction and which, according to the CEOE, is agreed with the unions.