Caramel Chris Brown And Lauren London

by trade union representatives

In recent times, are proliferating news about grants and other perks received by the unions, as well as costs borne by companies to pay union released. In this context, and with the intention of adding fuel to the fire, I will discuss the recent decision of the Court, dated July 12 last, rejecting union claims, to use e-mail from a company to communicate with workers.

The company in question had a internal email system by which workers could communicate with each other, while allowing management to communicate with their employees. Faced with the denial that this email was used by union representatives, state CCOO section wrote to the HR director in which he demanded for recognition of their right to use computer resources of the company to address their constituents. The director replied saying he was willing to discuss the issue and that this had to do an assessment and analysis. Despite the answer, CCOO ignored and decided to use the system. In this situation, the company warned them in writing, reminding them that the use of these means was reserved strictly for professional use.

Then, representatives of the workers went to court and filed suit against the company for not allowing the use of internal mail and asked to declare:

1. The obligation of the defendant company to facilitate and ensure the unions the peaceful use of media and software tools in the enterprise, for the exercise of union activity and labor among workers.
2. The right of trade union representatives of workers to transmit information and news of interest related to their association and representative activity through computer resources used by the company.
3. The right of trade union representatives of workers to use the E-mail or corporate email allowing real time without adversely affecting the business specific use.
4. The right of union representatives by e-mail address using the address of the company to employees of the workforce and in particular to its members under the same conditions that the Department is directed to workers, facilitating these effects company union representatives generic distribution list containing all the emails of workers.
5. And finally, the right of representatives union to have an exclusive space on the intranet as a union board and general association news of interest relating to his representative seeking to thereby create a password and user management as well as space permits for publication and publishing content.

The ruling means that, as regards the use of existing resources within the company and effective communication, but not required by law or agreements, or association created for a purpose, the question will be limits such use to be supported because, as with all rights, freedom of association is not an unlimited right. Among the constitutionally protected rights and that must be present to define its contents are, without doubt, the rights of employers and other property of an economic and business (STC 134/1994, of 9 May (RTC 1994, 134), F . 4).

The statement points out, first, that the right of trade unions, is justified only to convey information such trade union and labor, but considering the need to consider and deal with business interests in presence, impact the union use can have on the operation of the instrument of communication and collaboration requires the company to make it effective.

The doctrine of the Constitutional Court in which the ruling is based, includes the following conditions or restrictions:

a) The communication shall not disrupt normal business activity.

b) In the case of using an electronic means of communication, created as a tool of production, not the specific use may be impaired for the same business preordained, nor claimed that the interest should prevail union use

c) Finally, no foundation bearing the burden right business expressly required by the Ordinance, the use of non-business tool may result in additional charges to the employer, the assumption of significantly increased costs. Only if those limits are respected by the unions use is covered by art. 28-1 of the Constitution.

Applying these criteria leads the Court to the dismissal of the application for the following reasons:

1. First, the system is not suitable for mass mailing (when the company uses this method of communication with customers to outsource the remission of them). This is a communication system designed for professionals who work with computer inside the company.
   
2. The expert report which was ratified in the act of the trial, shows that the use of means of electronic mail or the intranet is added cost to the company both in relation to the space required for transmission over the network as its securizacón (backup) or storage, as well as the need to assign staff for management and maintenance.

In conclusion, credited the above circumstances, rejecting the claim because the negative corporate union representatives using modern information technology as a means of communication with its members and the other workers is based, to be its use disturbing, disruptive and costly.