AN - SAN 3073/2022
|AN - SAN 3073/2022|
|Relevant Law:||Article 5(1)(c) GDPR|
|Parties:||GLOBAL SALES SOLUTIONS LINE SLU|
CONFEDERACION GENERAL DEL TRABAJO (CGT)
FEDERACION DE SERVICIOS CCOO (CCOO)
|National Case Number/Name:||SAN 3073/2022|
|European Case Law Identifier:||ECLI:ES:AN:2022:3073|
|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[edit | edit source]
Facts[edit | edit source]
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[edit | edit source]
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 GDPR, 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[edit | edit source]
Share your comments here!
Further Resources[edit | edit source]
Share blogs or news articles here!
English Machine Translation of the Decision[edit | edit source]
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.