AN - SAN 3073/2022

AN - SAN 3073/2022
Court:	AN (Spain)
Jurisdiction:	Spain
Relevant Law:	Article 5(1)(c) GDPR
Decided:	27.06.2022
Published:	21.09.2022
Parties:	GLOBAL SALES SOLUTIONS LINE SLU CONFEDERACION GENERAL DEL TRABAJO (CGT) FEDERACION DE SERVICIOS CCOO (CCOO) GRUPO UNITONO GRUPO AVANZA
National Case Number/Name:	SAN 3073/2022
European Case Law Identifier:	ECLI:ES:AN:2022:3073
Appeal from:
Appeal to:
Original Language(s):	Spanish
Original Source:	CENDOJ (in Spanish)
Initial Contributor:	Carmen Villarroel

The Spanish National High Court established that demanding workers to provide their personal email address to their employer constitutes a breach of the data minimisation principle, and that the company shall provide the workers a corporate email if having an email address is necessary for the workers.

English Summary

Facts

The Labour Chamber of the Spanish National High Court dealt with an appeal from a case in which a trade union sued a company for not providing their workers a corporate email and asking for a personal email instead (among other things).

The workers were working remotely since the COVID-19 pandemic, and the company demanded their private emails in order to be able to communicate with the workers for diverse matters such as holidays requests, leaves, etc. This was established by a clause in their contracts.

The company had also previously agreed to provide corporate emails to the workers.

Additionally, the company had suffered a data breach in which their employees' private emails had been compromised.

Upon this, the trade union had also asked the company to provide the list of such emails so they could communicate with the workers. The company replied that they would not provide the workers' emails without their consent.

Holding

Given these facts, the Court first remarks that the law obliges the employer to provide their workers every means necessary to achieve develop their professional activity.

In this regard, also, the law regulating remote work, passed in 2020, establishes that in any case, companies shall be obliged to provide the means, equipment, tools and consumables required for the development of remote work.

Additionally, the Court highlights that the Court's case law has already established that demanding workers to provide their personal email or phone is a violation of GRDPR, since, should they be necessary for the development of the workers' activity, they should hence be provided by the company.

Therefore, the company would have breach the data minimisation principle from Article 5(1)(c) GDPR.

With regard to the union's demand to provide a list of the workers' emails, the Court stated that, also according to the Court's case law, providing such list does not require consent since it is necessary for the development of the purposes of the right (and freedom) to form a union enshrined in Article 7 of the Spanish Constitution. Therefore, such processing would be lawful in accordance with Article 6(1) GDPR.

Comment

Share your comments here!

Further Resources

Share blogs or news articles here!

English Machine Translation of the Decision

The decision below is a machine translation of the Spanish original. Please refer to the Spanish original for more details.

NATIONAL AUD. SOCIAL ROOM
MADRID
JUDGMENT: 00099/2022
NATIONAL AUDIENCE
Social Room
Lawyer of the Administration of Justice
MARTA JAUREGUIZAR SERRANO
JUDGMENT No. 99/2022
Trial Date: 06/21/2022
Sentence Date: 06/27/2022
type and no. Procedure: COLLECTIVE CONFLICTS 128/2022
proc. Accumulated: CCO 129/2022
Speaker: RAMÓN GALLO LLANOS
Plaintiff/s: GENERAL CONFEDERATION OF LABOR (CGT), FEDERATION OF SERVICES CCOO (CCOO),
Defendant/s: GLOBAL SALES SOLUTIONS LINE SLU.
Interested parties: INDEPENDENT TRADE UNION CENTRAL AND OFFICIALS (CSI-F), WORKERS' UNION
(USO), FEDERATION OF MOBILITY AND CONSUMPTION SERVICES OF THE GENERAL UNION OF WORKERS
(UGT), ARAGONES WORKERS' UNION (SOA), WORKERS FEDERATION AND WORKERS OF
CATALUNYA-INTERSINDICAL ALTERNATIVA DE CATALUNYA (FTC-IAC), FEDERATION OF BANKING, SAVINGS,
INSURANCE AND OFFICES (CIG), SPACE FOR TRADE UNION PARTICIPATION (EPS), SOMOS SINDICALISTAS (SS)
Resolution of the Judgment: ESTIMATE
NATIONAL AUD. SOCIAL ROOM
-
GOYA 14 (MADRID)
Phone: 914007258
Email:
Team/User: MAD
NIG: 28079 24 4 2022 0000131
1
JURISPRUDENCE
Model: ANS105 JUDGMENT
CCO COLLECTIVE CONFLICTS 0000128 /2022
Origin procedure: /
About: COLLECTIVE CONFLICT
Ilmo Speaker. Mr: RAMÓN GALLO LLANOS
JUDGMENT 99/2022
ILMO. MR. PRESIDENT:
JOSE PABLO ARAMENDI SANCHEZ
ILMOS/AS. MR./MRS. MAGISTRATES:
D. RAMÓN GALLO LLANOS
Ms. ANA SANCHO ARANZASTI
In MADRID, on June twenty-seventh, two thousand and twenty-two.
The Social Chamber of the National High Court composed of Messrs. Judges cited in the margin and
IN THE NAME OF THE KING
They have dictated the following
JUDGMENT
In the procedures of COLLECTIVE CONFLICTS 128/2022 and 129/2022 followed by demands of the
GENERAL CONFEDERATION OF LABOR (Lawyer Jose Mª Trillo Figueroa) and FEDERATION OF SERVICES OF
CCOO (Lawyer Sonia de Pablo Portillo) against GLOBAL SALES SOLUTIONS LINE SLU. (Cristina Porta Lawyer
channels). Interested parties: INDEPENDENT TRADE UNION AND OFFICIALS CENTRAL (CSI-F) (Lawyer Lourdes
Herrezuelo Sánchez), WORKERS' UNION UNION (USO) (Letrada Mª Eugenia Moreno Díaz), FEDERATION OF
MOBILITY AND CONSUMPTION SERVICES OF THE GENERAL UNION OF WORKERS (UGT) (Lawyer Juan Lozano
Gallén), FEDERATION OF BANKING, SAVINGS, INSURANCE AND OFFICES (CIG) (Law Marta Carretero Martín),
ARAGONESE WORKERS' UNION (SOA) (does not appear), WORKERS' AND WORKERS' FEDERATION
OF CATALUNYA-INTERSINDICAL ALTERNATIVA DE CATALUNYA (FTC-IAC) (does not appear), SPACE OF
UNION PARTICIPATION (EPS) (does not appear), SOMOS SINDICALISTAS (SS) (does not appear), on
COLLECTIVE CONFLICT. The Hon. Mr. D. RAMÓN GALLO LLANOS.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
First.- According to the records, on 04.12.2022 a lawsuit was filed by the GENERAL CONFEDERATION
OF LABOR regarding collective dispute, said lawsuit was registered under number 128/2022.
The same day a lawsuit was filed by the CCOO regarding a collective conflict that was registered with the number
129/2022.
Second.- Previous request for correction, by Order of 26-4-2022 it was agreed to join the two demands
and fixing as due for the hearing on June 21, 2022.
Third.- The acts of conciliation and trial took place on the day scheduled for their celebration, and resulting in the
conciliation without compromise, the act of trial began in which:
The CCOO lawyer affirmed and ratified her lawsuit requesting that a sentence be issued by which:
- The business requirement to make personal email available is declared contrary to law
to complete the activity management and human resources operations, as well as the clauses of the
teleworking contracts that oblige workers to make this means available.
- The obligation of the company to make a corporate email available to telecommuting staff is declared
as a necessary means for the development of the activity.
- The business refusal to provide the necessary resources to guarantee the
communication between the social representation and the staff in the teleworking modality.
For this, he pointed out that the activity of the company is that of the contact center, governing its labor relations
in accordance with the sectoral agreement of said branch of economic activity.
two
JURISPRUDENCE
That in order to carry out procedures and communications related to the management of human resources, such
such as communication of shifts and schedules, medical examinations, approval of policies and procedures
of obligatory compliance, request for vacations and leave of absence, etc... the operations personnel must
access the following preloaded apps on work devices:
1.- GSS-NET: Intranet of the company used for the communication of general policies of obligated
compliance, communication of vacancies, training actions, promotions, flexibility plan, etc...
2.- META4: To download payroll, mailbox for requests for payroll advances, request for leave of absence
and permits, affiliation to measures of the Equality Plan and the Flexible Plan.
3.- Vacations are requested by delivery on paper at the work center, or by means of a form
Google requiring personal email to complete delivery.
4- For communication of shifts and variations of the service, the company generates distribution lists by WhatsApp
for each campaign with the personal phone numbers of the staff and to complete the procedures
hosted on these channels, you have to fill out web forms that require, as a mandatory field, to include
personal email accounts.
He stressed that the obligatory provision of personal mail is expressly included in the
individual contracts signed by the staff who are in teleworking mode.
He reported that in September 2021 the company suffered a cyberattack that caused the theft of data
reasons for which a series of recommendations regarding the revision of
security of your personal data and emails.
He denounced that CCOO has been demanding since 2020 an electronic means that allows communication with
the staff and that the company has been declining these requests stating that the representation has
of corporate accounts omitting that there are no virtual boards or corporate accounts for the whole
of the personnel, thus, the person in charge of Labor Relations responded in October 2020: "you have
of the means indicated in the E.T. made available. As you will understand, the private emails of the
working people cannot be distributed without their express consent. Refering to
possibility that workers can get in touch with you, they can do it through
of their email account that the company has provided them years ago" and that "in January 2021 the company will
addressed the social representations of the companies belonging to the COVISIAN group that develop the
same activity (GSS Line, GPV, GSS VENTURE, UNIGLOBAL and UNITONO) indicating the possibility of using
the NOTE BOARD application of Google Chrome to generate boards that would be integrated into the portal of the
employee, which was declined by the social representation for its poor performance.
The CGT lawyer affirmed and ratified his lawsuit, desisting from his request for violation of rights
fundamental, requesting a ruling that:
- The employer practice of requiring the provision of electronic mail is declared contrary to law
staff in certain actions or operations of the employment relationship, as well as the clause of the contract of
telecommuting by which the worker is obliged to make personal mail available to the company.
- The right to make a credit account available to the operations staff and in teleworking is recognized.
corporate mail as a necessary means for the activity.
- The right to have the necessary elements made available for the development of its activity is declared
between the RLT and the remote workers in the company, as well as the emails
established corporate
He based his claims on facts similar to those invoked by the CCOO, he specified that the tool offered
by the company does not allow posting communications.
The rest of the participating unions joined these petitions.
The company opposed the lawsuit requesting the issuance of a judgment rejecting the lawsuit.
He indicated that there is no ordinary remote work situation but that the telework situation is palliative
by COVID and not ordinary.
He stated that it is the acquirer of the Unitono Group, which was bought from the Avanza Group and that it ceased to have the domain
of corporate mail of said company and that Unitono was dissolved on July 1, 2021 by absorption.
He pointed out that in 2018 he met with the unions in order to change the method of requests so that in
Instead of being done on paper, the requests were facilitated by Google doc, despite maintaining the
3
JURISPRUDENCE
possibility of paper, allowing the use of the coordinator's mail in order to receive confirmation
of the request.
As reasons for opposition he mentioned the following:
- that the interaction with the workers is carried out through the COVISIAN application since May 2021, no
corporate email access being necessary, sufficing with a URL accessing with Google
Chrome just a username, password, country and job site;
- considered that the action of the unions violated the doctrine of the own acts, since the action in
the present process was contradictory to what was agreed with the company because they did not challenge as MSCT the
Ignorance of the agreement reached with UNITONO regarding corporate mail.
- denied that an email was needed for processes with HR, the employee portal sufficing;
- argued that the legal system does not require the employer to provide workers with corporate mail;
- also argued that the risk of a cyber attack like the one suffered in September 2021 would increase due to the
fact of granting a corporate mail;
- stated that SAN 30-9-2020 was personal data, so the data cannot be transferred to
unions;
- that the company has offered the creation of a Gmail email by the company, discarding it for the
social representation;
- He pointed out that the scope of union representation under the Collective Code is provincial;
- considered that the use of electronic mail is not necessary for the activity of telemarketers;
- reiterated that teleworking is a palliative of COVID and that in any case the company does not impose that it be granted
an email;
- reported that in January 2021 the company provided unions with a virtual board called note board,
where you can indicate the information that is required that CCOO reported negatively, as well as CGT, which
the ITSS has not issued a report on these events.
Next, the documentary and testimonial evidence was proposed and practiced, after which the
The parties have made their conclusions final.
Fourth.- In the processing of these actions, all legal formalities have been observed.
Result and thus declared, the following
PROVEN FACTS
FIRST. - The defendant company is a company dedicated to the Contact Center sector, CCOO and CGT are
trade union organizations with a scope superior to that of the company and with sufficient implantation in it.-
according.-
SECOND.- The defendant company is under the scope of application of the Collective Agreement of
State scope of the Contact Center Sector (BOE July 12, 2017).
The company is part of the COVISAN group and since July 2021 it has incorporated staff from
the UNITONO entity through a merger by absorption operation in accordance with art. 44 of the ET.
The company has a workforce of approximately 2,500 people assigned to different centers located
in more than one autonomous community (Badajoz, Barcelona, Orense, Coruña, Reus, Madrid, Bilbao, Málaga and
Saragossa).
From March 2020 to today, the company maintains approximately 80% of the workforce in
distance work modality.- compliant-.
THIRD.- On July 23, 2019, UNITONO and the union sections reached an agreement in the SIMA
the seventh clause of which stipulated the following:
"The company will make a corporate email available to the worker where they can send
validly the communications to the worker, related to the management of human resources, communication
of shifts and schedules, medical examinations, procedures that must be complied with by the
worker etc..."- descriptor 88-.
4
JURISPRUDENCE
FOURTH.- At present, only the structure workers and the sections have corporate mail.
trade unions.- compliant-.
FIFTH.- As of March 2020, the company began to enter into individual agreements of
telecommuting, they indicate among other things that the worker provides a mobile phone number and a
email address, the latter field is indicated as mandatory.- descriptor 17 and similar-.
SIXTH.- The teleoperators of the staff have to make use for certain procedures of a
personal email account. The procedures that require the use of personal email are the following:
- For the password of the employee portal, when it expires, it is sent to the email so that you can proceed to
change it, if you don't have mail they can't provide it to you.
- The request for permits, vacations, days off, etc...
- The justification of leave, medical documents and proof of permits.
- The request for leaves of absence and/or reductions in working hours.
- The request for training activities.
- descriptors 84 to 94-.
Some of these procedures can be carried out on paper by delivering them to the workplace.-
according-.
The company's channels of communication with the workforce are as follows:
- SMS;
- GGS net which will be replaced by "COVISIAN SMART"
- Email.
-Google Current
- Whats Up"- descriptor 106-
SEVENTH.- In the month of September 2021, the company sent to the entire workforce a "NOTICE OF
UPDATE FOR EMPLOYEES AFFECTED BY DATA EXFILTRATION AS A CONSEQUENCE
OF THE "CONTI" RANSOMWARE CYBER ATTACK SUFFERED BY GSS ON SEPTEMBER 18, 2021" with the
content that works in descriptor 18.
EIGHTH.- On 6-8-2020 CCOO sent a letter to the company with the content that appears in descriptor 19 in the
that he requested that an adequate means be made available to this union section to be able to address and
inform the entire staff. What was reiterated on 9-10-2020, being answered by the company
in the following sense:
"I believe I have indicated that you already have the means indicated in the E.T placed at your disposal. As
understand the private emails of working people cannot be made available to them without
their express consent. Regarding the possibility that working people can
contact you, they can do it through the email account that the company has provided
years ago."- descriptor 20.-
NINTH.- In January 2021, the company offered the union sections the possibility of creating
a "note board" through google chrome and that was linked through a URL in the employee portal.
On the part of the CCOO, it was pointed out that said application inserted advertising and that if they wanted to eliminate it
who would take care of it.
CGT did not consider it useful for the following reasons:
Requires worker registration.
It has a free space limit of 50 megabytes
5 planks only
It has a free usage limit
Because it is only accessible through the Employee Portal.- descriptor 58.-
TENTH.- On 3-4-2021 a summons was issued by the ITSS requesting an explanatory report on the digital board
virtual.- descriptor 63.-
5
JURISPRUDENCE
The company answered in the terms of descriptor 63.
ELEVEN.- On 3-30-2021, the CCOO filed a mediation ballot with the SIMA with the content that
works in descriptor 67 without stating the result of the mediation.
TWELFTH.- On 5-4-2021, an attempt at mediation was held at the SIMA, issuing a record of disagreement.-
descriptor 2-. .
Legal provisions have been met.
FOUNDATIONS OF LAW
FIRST.- The Social Chamber of the National High Court is competent to hear the present process of
in accordance with the provisions of articles 9, 5 and 67 of Organic Law 6/85, of July 1, on the Judiciary
, in relation to the provisions of articles 8.1 and 2 g) of Law 36/2011, of October 10, Regulating
Social Jurisdiction.
SECOND. - In accordance with the provisions of article 97, 2 of Law 36/2011, of October 10, the
wording of the factual result of this resolution rests either on conforming facts, or the
sources of evidence that are expressed in them.
THIRD.- In the two joined lawsuits that are being processed in this proceeding, it is requested in
first place that the business requirement to make the mail available is declared contrary to law
personal email to complete the activity management and human resources operations, as well as the
clauses of teleworking contracts that oblige workers to make available
of this means to which the second of the petitions is tied, by virtue of which it is requested to declare the
The company's obligation to make a corporate email available to telecommuting staff as a means of
necessary for the development of the activity.
The company is fundamentally opposed for two reasons: firstly, it is alleged that personal mail
It is not necessary for the execution of the activity of the telemarketers that in any case can
access company information through the employee portal and that are not applicable to
workers the LTD regulations and the doctrine of this Chamber in this regard, since it does not apply to
teleworking imposed as a result of art. 5 of RD Law 8/2020.
From the facts stated above, the following can be deduced:
1º.- that the previous owner of the company undertook before the SIMA to make available to the staff
corporate email accounts;
2º.- that the clauses of the teleworking contracts oblige the people who opt for such modality of
provision of services to provide the company with a personal email account;
3º.- that in order to carry out procedures related to the company, an email is necessary;
4º- that on the occasion of a cyber attack suffered by the company in September 2021 the company communicated
to the staff the measures to be adopted in relation to personal mail.
Such data makes vanish the employer's allegation regarding which the email is not necessary
for the development of the existing contractual relationship between employees and company, since this of a
side assumed ex art. 44.1 ET the previous ones of the previous holder of the same in front of the staff, and their own
acts show that the correct development of the contractual relationship requires the existence of a
communication via email between company and employee.
Based on the above, we must point out:
1.- That it is the doctrine of both this Chamber and Chamber IV of the Supreme Court; the absence of the employment contract
(ex art. 1.1 E.T) implies, among other things, alienation in the media, which implies that the employer is the
that it has to provide the worker with the necessary means for the development of their employment relationship
(STS of 8-2-2021- rec 84/2019- confirming SAN of 6-2-2019- proc.318/2018-; SAN of 10-5-2021- cars
105/2021).
2.-That on the other hand, already the STS of 9-21-2015 - rec259/2014- which confirms the SAN of 1-28-2014- cars 428/2013-
considered contrary to the then current national and European regulations on data protection
that the worker was forced to provide his email and his personal telephone number to the company,
reasoning that if they were essential for the development of the contract both one and the other
must be provided by the company to the worker.
6
JURISPRUDENCE
3.- That the Third Transitory Provision of the Distance Work Law provides that:
"To remote work implemented exceptionally in application of article 5 of Royal Decree-law 8/2020, of
March 17, or as a consequence of the health containment measures derived from COVID-19, and while
these are maintained, the ordinary labor regulations will continue to apply.
In any case, companies will be obliged to provide the means, equipment, tools and consumables that
requires the development of remote work, as well as the necessary maintenance."
The application of the above considerations has to lead us to the estimation of the first two petitions
of the demand since it is necessary for the worker to have an email account as
we reasoned above, it is the employer who is obliged to provide it, without being excused for that purpose the
cost thereof, or the risk of a cyber attack, as the company has suggested, since the employer who has
to assume the risks of its business activity by providing the staff with the necessary means for the
development of the same even in remote work adopted as a preventive measure of COVID 19.
To this must be added, that the company not having accredited that there is currently a containment measure
adopted as a result of the pandemic, said request would also have support in art. 11 of the LTD.
Finally, we must say that the fact that 20 days have elapsed since the company left
providing the email to the template does not imply that we are faced with a modification
substantial consolidated working conditions insofar as:
a) the working conditions that are modifiable via art. 41 E.T are only those whose source
normative is of a contractual nature, and as we have reasoned, the principle of alienation has its origin in
the legal definition of the employee is made in art. 1.1 E.T;
b) for the expiration period of art. 138.1 of the LRJS requires reliable and written notification
of the modification by the employer to the workers or their legal representatives, and nothing is recorded
regarding such notification in this regard in the HHPP of this sentence.
FOURTH. - In the last of the petitions of their respective demands, the actors request:
1º.- by CGT to declare the right to make available the necessary elements for the development
of its representative activity between the RLT and the remote workers in the company, as well as
corporate emails already implemented;
2º.- By CCOO that the business refusal to provide the necessary resources is declared contrary to law
to guarantee communication between the social representation and the staff in the teleworking modality.
To resolve such motions we have the content of art. 8 of the LOLS which states that:
"1. Workers affiliated to a union may, within the scope of the company or workplace:
a) Establish Union Sections in accordance with the provisions of the Union Statutes.
b) Hold meetings, prior notification to the employer, collect dues and distribute union information, outside
working hours and without disturbing the normal activity of the company.
c) Receive the information sent by your union.
2. Without prejudice to what is established by collective agreement, the Trade Union Sections of the trade unions
most representative and of those who have representation in the company committees and in the governing bodies.
representation that are established in the Public Administrations or have personnel delegates,
will have the following rights:
a) In order to facilitate the dissemination of those notices that may be of interest to members of the union and to
workers in general, the company will put at their disposal a notice board that must be placed in the
work center and in a place where adequate access to it for workers is guaranteed.
b) To collective bargaining, in the terms established in its specific legislation.
c) To the use of a suitable place in which they can carry out their activities in those companies or
work centers with more than 250 workers.
From said precept, it can be inferred in regard to the present case that in order to guarantee the right to union activity
in the company (art. 2.1 d) and art. 2.2 d), the employer must, on the one hand, guarantee the right to information
on the part of the trade union organizations to the workforce, and on the other hand, to provide the trade union sections with
the implementation referred to in the precept a bulletin board that is easily accessible by
workers.
7
JURISPRUDENCE
On the other hand, we have pointed out in the recent SAN of 6-23-2022 issued in procedure 145/2022 that
the provision of personal data by the employer to trade unions that are necessary for the
development of the purposes referred to in art. 7 of the EC; does not require the authorization of
these because it is a lawful treatment protected by art. 6.1 of 4 Regulation 2016/679 of
European Parliament and of the Council of April 27, 2016.
Based on the foregoing, the factual relationship of this resolution follows:
1º.- that the defendant has a considerable part of its staff providing services in a telecommuting regime;
2º.- that he has refused to provide the emails of the staff for the dissemination of information
trade union arguing that it is personal data;
3º.- that the only telematic tool that it has provided to guarantee the existence of a notice board
announcements of the union sections is an external tool linked to the employee portal regarding
the one that the union sections have denounced, among other things that so that advertising is not inserted there is
have to pay a subscription, and have limited content of the information to hang in it (50 megabytes).
From the foregoing, the existence of the business breach is evidenced, the illegality of which is intended to be declared
by the plaintiffs, since it is evident that the company, without excuse related to the normal development of the
business activity has hindered the right of the plaintiffs to disseminate trade union information to the people
that provide teleworking services and has not provided the union sections with a tool
where they can freely and unhindered post the notices they deem convenient, sending them
to a third-party application to which such organizations must subscribe if they do not wish to have messages inserted
advertisements that limits the volume of files to upload.
Finally, we understand that in the present case, in which the company considers it necessary that all the
people who provide services in a telecommuting regime - as this is required in the contracts - have a
email that to guarantee the right to disseminate union information it is necessary that you provide
to the union sections the mail directory of the employees for being the only means that allows such
law without interference by the defendant.
And all this while there were containment measures derived from COVID 19, once, the
same, said requests would also have support in the provisions of art. 19.2 of the LTD ("The company
must provide the legal representation of the workers with the necessary elements for the
development of its representative activity, including access to communications and electronic addresses
of use in the company and the implementation of the virtual board, when it is compatible with the form of provision of the
remote work"), which forces the company directly to implement the virtual board without the preparation
of the same may be displaced to the action carried out by trade union organizations with a third party.
server, as the company has done in this case.
HAVING SEEN the aforementioned legal precepts and others of general and pertinent application,
WE FAILED
CONSIDERING the lawsuits filed by the CGT and CCOO to which the CIG, CSIF, USO and UGT have adhered against
to GLOBAL SALES SOLUTIONS LINE SLU,
1.- We declare:
- Contrary to law, the employer's practice of requiring the provision of personal email in
certain actions or operations of the employment relationship, as well as the clause of the teleworking contract
by which the worker is obliged to make personal mail available to the company.
- The right to make an email account available to operations staff and telecommuters
corporate as a necessary means for the activity.
- the right to have the necessary elements made available for the development of their activity
between the RLT and the remote workers in the company, as well as the emails
established corporate
2.- We declare contrary to law the business requirement to make email available
staff to complete the activity management and human resources operations, as well as the clauses of
teleworking contracts that oblige workers to make this medium available, the
The company's obligation to make a corporate email available to telecommuting staff as a means of
necessary for the development of the activity and contrary to law the business refusal to supply the
8
JURISPRUDENCE
precise resources to guarantee communication between the social representation and the staff in the modality
of telecommuting.
Notify the present judgment to the parties, warning them that, against it, there is an appeal for Cassation.
before the Supreme Court, which may be prepared before this Social Chamber of the National High Court in the
term of FIVE business DAYS from the notification, being able to do so by means of a statement by the party or by
your lawyer, social graduate or representative when notified, or by means of a document presented in this Chamber
within the period indicated above.
At the time of preparing the Appeal for Cassation before the Social Chamber of the National High Court, the appellant,
If you do not enjoy the benefit of Free Justice, you must prove that you have made the deposit of 600 euros provided for in
art. 229.1.b of the Regulatory Law of the Social Jurisdiction, and, in the case of having been convicted in a sentence
to the payment of any amount, having consigned the amount subject to condemnation in accordance with art. 230 of the
same legal text, all of this in the current account that the Chamber has open in the Banco de Santander Branch
of Calle Barquillo 49, if it is by transfer with the number 0049 3569 92 0005001274 stating in the
observations number 2419 0000 00 0128 22 (IBAN ES55) ; if it is in cash in account nº 2419 0000 00 0128 22
(IBAN ES55), being able to substitute the consignment in cash for insurance by means of a bank guarantee,
stating the joint and several liability of the guarantor.
Take testimony of this sentence to the original records and incorporate it into the book of sentences.
So our judgment, we pronounce it, sign and send.