The Fourth Chamber of the Supreme Court in its recent rulings considers that the increase must be applied in the terms contemplated in the Workers’ Statute, not affecting those who are already receiving a higher salary on an annual basis.
The Supreme Court puts an end to the doubts that have arisen in recent years as to how the increase in the SMI (minimum interprofessional wage) should be set, and in particular with regard to that set for 2019, discussing whether the new amounts should be taken as the base salary and on them calculate the different supplements such as length of service, hardship, etc. as established by the literal wording of the SMI.
The Fourth Chamber has been clear in this regard and unanimously stated that it does not. It clarified that “in order to achieve the effective receipt of the guaranteed minimum wage, the provisions of the collective agreement must be taken into account, including the various salary supplements, unless a regulation with the status of law provides another conclusion, or the collective agreement itself expressly states otherwise”.
Arguing that, to do otherwise would be to disregard the rule of art. 27.1 of the Workers’ Statute, but also to dissolve the very concept of the SMI, since this would end up being different for each collective agreement subject to a conventional regulation or for each person depending on their supplements.
In this way, the first of the rulings no. 74/2022 handed down on 26/01/2022, with Angel Blasco Pellicer as rapporteur, explains that the amount received as a seniority supplement is part of the salary that must be compared with the new SMI. The second of the rulings No. 272/2022 dated 29/03/2022, with Antonio Sempere Navarro as rapporteur, extends this rule to all salary supplements and the third dated 01/04/2022 No. 295/2022, with Rosario Concepción Ureste García as rapporteur, resolving this conflict in the same sense, with the warning that extra-salary payments are outside the rule.