The Social Chamber of the Supreme Court focuses on the interpretation and application of the special regulations related to unemployment caused by the suspension of the employment contract in an ERTE Covid due to force majeure.
Firstly, the ruling highlights that the period of receiving unemployment benefits during a Covid ERTE should not be counted for the purposes of receiving a new unemployment benefit. The special Covid regulations, established in Royal Decree-Law 8/2020, of March 17, on extraordinary urgent measures to address the economic and social impact of COVID-19, according to the interpretation of the Supreme Court, do not introduce a rule that generates more benefits than those generally provided for in the General Social Security Law (LGSS) but rather maintain for the worker the same legal status recognized in the ordinary regulations, despite the absence of company contributions in the unemployment benefit period. COVID.
The court emphasizes that the special regulations are not intended to generate a different and more extensive right than that contemplated in the General Social Security Law, and that any exception to the general rules must be expressly contemplated in the law. Since the possibility of generating new periods of unemployment is not provided for in the special regulations, the Chamber concludes that the general rule of the LGSS that excludes this possibility applies.
The ruling also highlights that the LGSS, which regulates this issue, establishes that for a specific unemployment benefit, the contributions already computed for the recognition of a previous right cannot be taken into account. The only exception mentioned in the general rule is the case of benefits recognized for the suspension of the employment relationship due to gender violence.
Failed: The Chamber rejects the appeal for the unification of doctrine filed by the employee, confirming that the periods in an ERTE situation cannot be taken into account for the payment of a future unemployment benefit, thus supporting the position of the State Public Employment Service (SEPE) in this case.
