To Initiate a Collective Dispute, the Union Must Prove Sufficient Representation in the Relevant Scope
The Supreme Court ruling of March 3, 2021 (Case No. 178/2019) addresses the requirements for the active standing of a union in collective dispute proceedings, stating that it is necessary for the union’s scope to be at least equal to or broader than that of the conflict and to demonstrate sufficient representation within that scope.
These requirements form the essential “principle of correspondence.” In the case considered in the Supreme Court ruling of March 3, 2021, such requirements were not met, as the total number of employees in the company as of April 2019 was 3,194, and the total number of unitary representatives in the company as of April 2019 amounted to 119. None of these unitary representatives belonged to the claimant union, which groups all active workers, retirees, and/or employees on leave in the private security companies across the entire national territory. The defendant company does not operate in private security but provides services. The claimant union has not participated in the company’s elections or in the negotiation of the collective agreement. The claimant union does not have any unitary representatives in any of the company’s work centers, nor has it proven the number of members in the union at the various company work centers.
In conclusion, the claimant union that filed the collective dispute lacks the legitimacy to do so, as it has not demonstrated its representation within the scope of the conflict. It has not proven that the union has representation in the company’s unitary bodies, nor has it demonstrated its level of membership in the sector regulated by the agreement.
