2024-12-17 11:09:00
Tuesday 17 December 2024, 12.09pm
The Social Chamber of the Supreme Court has issued a unifying ruling of doctrine in which it denies the right to early retirement to a bank employee who resigned when she was informed of her transfer to another province due to the office closure plan that was underway carrying on at Banco Mare Nostrum, an organization where the woman had worked for 36 years.
The ruling, put forward by ‘Cinco Días’, explains that the legislation in force at the time of the facts did not allow early retirement when the employment contract was terminated at the worker’s request.
This was modified subsequently, in the 2021 pension reform, when the termination of the employment contract by the worker’s will was included among the reasons for being able to retire early.
The woman, who had started working at Banco Mare Nostrum in November 1978, was included in the internal flexibility measures plan with a 20% reduction in the working day and salary starting from 29 July 2013. This plan provided for transfers to other work centers” in order to minimize the employment impact deriving from the closure of the offices and the adaptation of the department staff.”
In November 2014, the organization informed the worker that it had been decided to transfer her workplace to the headquarters in Villamalea (Albacete), and that she had to reach the headquarters within 30 calendar days. Unsatisfied with this transfer, the woman asked the company to terminate her employment relationship, which was granted with effect from 23 November 2014.
In 2019, the appellant applied for an old-age pension, which was denied because she was then 61 years old, more than two years younger than the 65 years required by law, and because she had not stopped working for reasons not attributable to the free will of the worker. Although she complained about this decision to Social Security, it again rejected her claims and she appealed to court.
In a first sentence, issued in May 2021 by the Social Court number 10 of Malaga, the worker ruled favorably in her case against the National Social Security Institute (INSS), recognizing her right to access early retirement, on a regulatory basis of 2,874.33 euros, in a percentage of 70% and with effect from 31 October 2019.
The INSS appealed this first ruling to the Superior Court of Justice of Andalusia (TSJA), which ruled in favor of Social Security and revoked the previous ruling, denying the woman the right to early retirement.
It was then that the appellant filed an appeal for unification of doctrines before the Supreme Court. In its ruling, the High Court indicates that the formulation applicable to the present case is the one prior to that provided for by law 21/2021 on the guarantee of the purchasing power of pensions.
Therefore, the then applicable law (Article 207 of the General Law on Social Security) required that, in order to be eligible for early retirement, the cessation of employment must have occurred as a result of a company restructuring situation which prevented the continuity of the employment relationship. Work.
In this way, the Supreme Court indicates that among the causes for benefiting from early retirement the extinct cause of the analyzed case was not included: the termination of the employment contract for which the worker can opt as a consequence of the geographical mobility decided by the company nor dismissal for will of the worker.
In summary, the High Court interprets that the extinctive causes which then allowed access to early retirement for reasons not attributable to the worker were not only legally assessed in Article 207 of the General Law on Social Security, but also in the applicable wording “were exclusively and evidently linked to corporate restructuring situations.”
«It is evident that, according to the wording of article 207.1 d) prior to Law 21/2021 – wording applicable here -, early retirement for reasons not attributable to the free will of the worker was not available for those who “had terminated the contract in reaction to a corporate geographic mobility decision,” states the Supreme Court, thus upholding the TSJA ruling and dismissing the appellant’s claims.
Comment
Report a bug
#Supreme #Court #denies #early #retirement #bank #employee #resigned #due #transfer #province