The union defends that they should be considered as salary receipt in kind.

An appeal was filed against ruling No. 117/2021 issued by the Social Chamber of the National Court on May 24, in proceedings No. 419/2020.

In the lawsuit, the recognition of several rights for teleworking workers was requested, all with retroactive effect to March 11, 2020:

• C Compensation for expenses: Coverage of internet connection costs, ADSL line and energy supplies to maintain an adequate temperature in the home.
• Food check: A payment of €8 per day worked.
• Provision of equipment: Ergonomic chairs, screensaver and footrest.

The defendant company is dedicated to the sale, rental and maintenance of electronic equipment and information processing systems, among others. It has 900 workers distributed in work centers in Madrid, Barcelona, ​​Seville and Bilbao.

As of March 11, 2020, due to health containment measures derived from COVID-19, the company decided that workers assigned to the offices of a specific client would work from home until further notice. The workers of this specific client were governed by specific regulations for the use of the internal cafeteria and restaurant tickets. Meals were subsidized on in-person work days. No compensation was received on vacation or medical leave days.

The question to be resolved It consisted of determining whether the workers who began to provide services in teleworking mode had the right to receive meal checks and whether the company's decision to eliminate this payment from that date was in accordance with the law.

The National Court dismissed the claim of collective conflict arguing that:

• Food checks are extra-salary compensation that covers travel expenses, which do not apply to those who work from home.
• There is no legal basis that forces the company to cover these expenses in a teleworking situation.

In the appeal:

The union reported violation of article 26.1 and 2 of the Workers' Statute, as well as article 4.1 of RDL 28/2020 of September 22, which regulates remote work, arguing that the food check is a salary receipt that can be considered salary in kind.

The company requested the dismissal of the appeal, alleging that meal checks compensate for food expenses linked to in-person work and that, furthermore, this item was not paid before the pandemic to employees who worked remotely.

The Fiscal Ministry requested the dismissal of the appeal for violation of substantive norms and jurisprudence.

According to the Supreme Court analysis:

He article 26 ET establishes that the economic perceptions of workers in money or in kind are considered wages, as long as they reward effective work. Furthermore, the amounts received by the worker as compensation or compensation for expenses incurred as a result of work performance will not be considered salary.

He RDL 28/2020 of September 22 is repealed by Law 10/2021 of July 9 “Equality of treatment and opportunities and non-discrimination"People who carry out remote work totally or partially will have the same rights as the in-person worker. Likewise, according to the Third Transitional Provision, referring to the health containment of COVID-19, remote work implemented exceptionally in application of article 5 of RDL 8/2020 of March 17, will be governed by ordinary regulations.

The Court analyzed Supreme Court doctrine, which establishes that all remuneration received by the employee must be considered a salary, except for supplements that effectively compensate for transportation costs or clothing maintenance.The food check is compensatory in nature, therefore it is extra-salary., when it compensates the expenses that the worker has for having a meal outside his home. It will have a salary nature when it is paid regardless of the work performed and its circumstances..

He Supreme Court concluded that the expenses were NOT paid to those who work from their own home.  Therefore, the staff who had switched to teleworking due to COVID were not disadvantaged compared to them.  He Payment of checks is related to the need to be present at the client's facilities. Furthermore, RDL 28/2020 is not applicable in this context, which must be governed by ordinary labor regulations.

He ruling dismisses the appeal filed by the union and confirms the previous ruling, declaring it final.