This Supreme Court ruling rcud. 3034/2023 deals with the determination of who has the responsibility to prove the payment of wages, in situations where the existence of the provision of labor services during the period in question is not in dispute.
The appealed ruling, issued by the Social Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Castilla-La Mancha on July 16, 2020, with appeal number 825/2019, dismissed the appeal presented by the worker. Said ruling confirmed the terms of the first instance ruling, which had rejected the claim presented by the worker seeking the recovery of various salary sums.
The Social Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Castilla-La Mancha based its ruling on the conclusion that, according to the first instance ruling, and after evaluating the different evidence presented, the worker was unable to demonstrate the existence of the claimed salary debt. In this sense, the burden of proof fell on the plaintiff, in accordance with the provisions of article 217.2 of the Civil Procedure Law (LEC).
The appeal raises the allegation of a violation of articles 4.2.f) and 29.1 of the Workers' Statute, arguing that the application of the provisions of article 217 of the LEC imposes on the company the responsibility of demonstrating the payment of wages when the provision of labor services by the worker is not in question. According to this reasoning, the absence of evidence supporting the payment of the claimed remuneration should lead to the estimation of the request presented in the lawsuit.
In support of this position, a ruling from the same Social Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Castilla-La Mancha is invoked, issued on July 20, 2020, under appeal number 899/2019.
The question before the court is to determine whether there is a contradiction between the contested ruling and the contrasting ruling, in the terms required by article 219.1 of the Law Regulating Social Jurisdiction (LRJS).
The contradiction is clearly noticeable, since the contrasting sentence involves the other worker from the same defendant company, who played the role of assistant to the plaintiff in the present case. Both workers filed similar lawsuits in the same labor court, demanding identical remuneration for the same period and under similar arguments.
Both worked for the defendant construction company on various projects in the Community of Madrid. One as an officer and the other as his pawn. Both withdrew their claim against the main company, maintaining the action only against the company in which they were employed until the termination of the employment relationship on July 14, 2014. The lawsuits sought payment of monthly payments for May, June and 14 days of July 2017, as well as extra pay for June and December 2017 and untaken vacations.
The two lawsuits were heard by the same social court, which applied the same solution in both cases based on the rules for distributing the burden of proof in article 217 of the Civil Procedure Law (LEC).
The appealed ruling confirmed this decision by considering that the plaintiff could not demonstrate non-payment of the amounts claimed. In contrast, the reference ruling accepted the other worker's appeal and argued that, according to the rules of the burden of proof, it is up to the defendant company to prove compliance with its payment obligation.
Despite the identity in facts, claims and foundations, the sentences have reached divergent conclusions when applying article 217 LEC regarding the distribution of the burden of proof.
The contrast ruling indicates that the court of first instance focused on reasoning about the debt claimed from the main company, without delving into the analysis of the claim against the employer company of the two workers.
With the withdrawal of the action against the main company, the contradiction in the rulings regarding the legal consequences of applying article 217 LEC becomes evident. Unification of this doctrine is the objective to be addressed.
Furthermore, it should be noted that the Public Prosecutor's Office is in favor of accepting the appeal, given that the defendant company has not presented any written challenge.
Failed: uphold the appeal for the unification of doctrine filed by the worker against the ruling handed down on July 16, 2020 by the Social Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Castilla La Mancha, followed at his request against Construcciones y Obras Públicas Toletum, S.L., Vertebra Engineering Construction, S.A., with the intervention of the Salary Guarantee Fund, regarding a claim for amount.
Marry and annul the appealed sentence, and resolve the supplication debate in the sense of upholding the appeal of that type formulated by the plaintiff, condemning exclusively the company Construcciones y Obras Públicas Toletum, S.L., to pay the plaintiff the amount of 6,318.10 euros and the interest for late payment that corresponds in accordance with art. 29.3 ET. Without coasts.
