The Supreme Court confirms a fantastic of 30,000 euros to Decathlon for violating freedom of affiliation | Economy | EUROtoday

The Supreme Court has sentenced Decathlon Spain to pay compensation of 30,000 euros in damages for a number of violations of the correct to freedom of affiliation of its employees, following a lawsuit from the CC OO Services Federation. The ruling, which is remaining, ratifies a earlier ruling by the National Court that already dominated in the identical sense in June 2024.

In addition to the aforementioned cost of compensation, the judicial decision, dated January 15, requires the corporate to pay a fantastic of three,000 euros for procedural recklessness and to pay authorized prices set at one other 1,500 euros, as reported by the union. The headquarters highlights that the ruling confirms that Decathlon has had “continued, conscious and repeated anti-union behavior over time.”

Specifically, the rulings of the National Court, first, and of the Supreme Court, later, think about confirmed “the systematic refusal” of the sports activities gear multinational to offer info to the union delegates; to authorize the use by the union part of the discover board and telematic means within the office, to speak with the employees. This conduct, within the opinion of the courts, “reveals obvious bad faith” and is “clearly harmful.” Likewise, additionally they condemn the corporate for not facilitating the usage of union hours and refusing to compensate the time utilized by the delegates.

All of those behaviors had been thought-about severe infractions by the National Court, which declared “the radical nullity of the aforementioned behaviors” and ordered “the immediate cessation of the anti-union behavior.” Faced with this ruling, Decathlon appealed to the Supreme Court, in a cassation enchantment, which has been rejected by the High Court as a result of “the nature and aggravating nature of the business breaches in relation to the exercise of the right to union action; the plurality of infractions committed; and the reiteration and succession over time of such breaches.”

From CC OO they’ve criticized that “the multinational not only is not an example of a socially responsible company, but it has also attempted to operate with undisguised impunity, making its workforce precarious to the extreme and unscrupulously repressing union representation.” What’s extra, this union assures that “in its latest drift in court, the company has tried to delay, hinder and muddy up without ever assuming its failure to comply with fundamental rights.”

It is for this final cause that the Supreme Court has additionally confirmed the aforementioned fantastic of three,000 euros for procedural recklessness and “bad faith” within the firm’s perspective. The courtroom defends this by arguing that, in the course of the procedural dispute, the corporate had “an extensive, repetitive and illogical response from the defendant, affecting inconsequential aspects, which only undermined the court’s patience,” the ruling concludes.