The Supreme Court Recently Issues a Key Ruling on Contributions to the Public Treasury in the Context of a Collective Redundancy Procedure (ERE), Establishing That the Obligation to Make Such Contributions Depends on the Actual Number of Dismissals and Not the Maximum Number of Terminations Agreed Upon. The Defense Was Led by Our Partner Ana Godino.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court supports the criteria previously established by the High Court of Justice of Madrid, concluding that:

• The sixteenth additional provision of Law 27/2011, in its wording at the time of processing the collective dismissal, required the dismissal to affect at least 100 workers.

• It is irrelevant that the agreement ending the consultation period had agreed to the termination of more contracts, and that up to 110 contract terminations had been authorized, as argued by the Ministry of Labor in its cassation appeal. What matters is the actual number of dismissals carried out, which in this case was 98.

• Since the threshold of 100 dismissals was not met, the obligation to make a contribution does not arise.

• The time limit to claim these contributions should be calculated from the moment the Public Treasury can enforce its right, not when it unilaterally decides to do so.

This ruling is framed within the regulations that require profitable companies conducting collective redundancies affecting employees aged 50 or over to make a financial contribution to the Public Treasury, provided certain requirements are met, such as employing more than 100 workers and the ERE affecting a significant number of employees over 50 years old.

It is important to note that the contribution to the Public Treasury in cases of collective redundancies is a public law, non-tax obligation, as established by Law 47/2003.

This ruling clarifies key aspects regarding the application of contributions to the Public Treasury in collective dismissal procedures, providing legal certainty for both the companies and workers involved.