CELEX: 62013CA0392
Language: en
Date: 2015-05-13 00:00:00
Title: Case C-392/13: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Barcelona — Spain) — Andrés Rabal Cañas v Nexea Gestión Documental SA, Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Collective redundancies — Directive 98/59/EC — Meaning of ‘establishment’ — Method of calculating the number of workers made redundant)

20.7.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 236/4
            
         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Barcelona — Spain) — Andrés Rabal Cañas v Nexea Gestión Documental SA, Fondo de Garantía Salarial
   (Case C-392/13) (1)
   
   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Collective redundancies - Directive 98/59/EC - Meaning of ‘establishment’ - Method of calculating the number of workers made redundant))
   (2015/C 236/05)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   
      Referring court
   
   Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Barcelona
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Andrés Rabal Cañas
   
      Defendants: Nexea Gestión Documental SA, Fondo de Garantía Salarial
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Article 1(1)(a) of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies must be interpreted as precluding national legislation that introduces the undertaking and not the establishment as the sole reference unit, where the effect of the application of that criterion is to preclude the information and consultation procedure provided for in Articles 2 to 4 of that directive, when the dismissals in question would have been considered ‘collective redundancies’, under the definition in Article 1(1)(a) of that directive, had the establishment been used as the reference unit.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Article 1(1) of Directive 98/59 must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of establishing whether ‘collective redundancies’, within the meaning of that provision, have been effected, there is no need to take into account individual terminations of contracts of employment concluded for limited periods of time or for specific tasks, when those terminations take place on the date of expiry of the contract or on the date on which that task was completed.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 98/59 must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of establishing the existence of collective redundancies effected under contracts of employment concluded for limited periods of time or for specific tasks, it is not necessary for the cause of such collective redundancies to derive from the same collective contractual framework for the same duration or the same task.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.