Continued Effect and Contractual Modifications: Commentary on Ordinance No. 9136 of 2024
Ordinance No. 9136 of April 5, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, represents an important jurisprudential intervention in the field of labor law and collective agreements. In this ruling, the judges were called upon to address the issue of succession between collective agreements and detrimental modifications made to workers' rights. We will analyze the implications of this decision, which offers food for thought for both employers and workers.
The Legal Context of Continued Effect
The central issue of this ordinance concerns the principle of the continued effect of collective agreements. Article 2077 of the Civil Code establishes that, in the event of succession between collective agreements, detrimental modifications are admissible only within specific limits. This means that, although a previous agreement may be replaced by a new one, rights already acquired by workers cannot be affected without valid justification.
Details of the Ordinance and Practical Implications
In the specific case, the Court excluded the violation of Article 2077 of the Civil Code in relation to a company-level trade union agreement. This agreement, while reorganizing the remuneration system and consolidating certain allowances into new emoluments, respected workers' remuneration rights. In particular, the worker's right to waive individual economic benefits was recognized, provided that these did not concern inalienable rights established by law or by previous collective agreements.
- Workers can waive individual economic rights, but only under certain conditions.
- The provisions of collective agreements operate as heterogeneous sources, influencing individual rights.
- Detrimental modifications are admissible, but they must not infringe upon rights already acquired.
CONTINUED EFFECT - SUCCESSION OF AGREEMENTS Detrimental modifications of previous provisions - Admissibility - Basis - Company-level trade union agreement modifying a previous agreement - Violation of Article 2077 of the Civil Code and workers' remuneration rights - Exclusion - Case facts. In the event of succession between collective agreements, detrimental modifications for the worker are admissible with the sole limitation of vested rights, without considering a right derived from a lapsed or superseded collective provision as definitively acquired, as the provisions of collective agreements operate externally as a heteronomous source of regulation concurrent with the individual source, while retaining the worker's right to validly waive individual economic benefits that do not concern the application of mandatory provisions established by law or collective agreements, nor inalienable rights pursuant to Article 2113 of the Civil Code. (In the specific case, the Supreme Court excluded the violation of Article 2077 of the Civil Code and workers' remuneration rights by a company-level trade union agreement which, in comprehensively reorganizing the remuneration system, consolidated certain ancillary allowances of collective origin into two new emoluments conditional upon being in service, making their recognition, for employees holding a supplementary salary agreed upon by individual agreement, subject to the choice to waive it through an agreement signed pursuant to Article 2113, last paragraph, of the Civil Code).
Conclusions
In summary, Ordinance No. 9136 of 2024 offers an important clarification on the management of contractual modifications in the workplace. The ruling reiterates that, although detrimental modifications are admissible, rights already acquired by workers must always be protected. This balance is fundamental to ensuring social justice and the protection of workers' rights in a context of continuous regulatory evolution.
