Post by account_disabled on Mar 3, 2024 21:21:30 GMT -10
Provisions of article 41 of the Workers' Statute, causing, says the Supreme Court, "inexorably the nullity of the measure to suppress meal tickets while the state of alarm lasted, as it represents a substantial modification of the working conditions, in terms of remuneration" as the National Court also said when resolving the unions' appeal. This would be the same, says the Supreme Court, if we were talking about an extra-salary concept. The judges of the plenary session of the social chamber of the Supreme Court insist that in this particular case, the company and workers had signed agreements that had made restaurant tickets part of the "workers' salary structure." Money that they charged even in cases of continuous working hours without ruling out or excluding days teleworked "through the use of new technologies.
Salary or compensation In recent years, the Supreme Court has issued numerous rulings on restaurant tickets that companies give to their workers for daily Australia Phone Number spending on meals and on their legal nature. In the case of Capgemini, the judges have concluded that it is a salary concept since it was paid independently of whether or not the workers had an expense on food. In other cases, when it is demonstrated that it corresponds to a specific expense, it is treated as compensation. A recent ruling from the Supreme Court, for example, establishes that a restaurant ticket does not have to be part of the salary even if it is collected month after month on the payroll if the company and workers have decided that it is a supplement. This Supreme Court decision, for example, left out the amount of restaurant tickets from the calculations of salary reviews, extra pay, variables.
Bonuses, supplements or temporary disability during a sick leave. In both cases, the Supreme Court now says in this latest resolution, "the conclusion reached would remain immutable." Any change, even if the restaurant tickets were compensatory in nature, requires going through what the Workers' Statute says. The Supreme Court explains: "The substantial changes introduced with respect to its scope would also have to be processed in accordance with said provision, so that, once its application is over, the consequence that would follow would also be the estimation of the demand agreed upon in the instance.
Salary or compensation In recent years, the Supreme Court has issued numerous rulings on restaurant tickets that companies give to their workers for daily Australia Phone Number spending on meals and on their legal nature. In the case of Capgemini, the judges have concluded that it is a salary concept since it was paid independently of whether or not the workers had an expense on food. In other cases, when it is demonstrated that it corresponds to a specific expense, it is treated as compensation. A recent ruling from the Supreme Court, for example, establishes that a restaurant ticket does not have to be part of the salary even if it is collected month after month on the payroll if the company and workers have decided that it is a supplement. This Supreme Court decision, for example, left out the amount of restaurant tickets from the calculations of salary reviews, extra pay, variables.
Bonuses, supplements or temporary disability during a sick leave. In both cases, the Supreme Court now says in this latest resolution, "the conclusion reached would remain immutable." Any change, even if the restaurant tickets were compensatory in nature, requires going through what the Workers' Statute says. The Supreme Court explains: "The substantial changes introduced with respect to its scope would also have to be processed in accordance with said provision, so that, once its application is over, the consequence that would follow would also be the estimation of the demand agreed upon in the instance.