The National Court declares null and void the business practice of not providing workers with monthly pay slips in paper format.
A recent ruling issued on April 28, 2015 by the Social Chamber of the National Court, considers that the duty to deliver the payslip on paper is an obligation to do something that “cannot be unilaterally substituted by the company, imposing burdens on the worker”, since this is contrary to the provisions of article 1.166 of the Civil Code, according to which: “the debtor of a thing cannot force his creditor to receive a different one, even if it is of equal or greater value than the one owed” and “nor in obligations to do can one act be substituted for another against the will of the creditor”.
In this regard, Article 29.1 of the Workers' Statute Law establishes that "salary documentation shall be carried out by delivering to the worker an individual receipt justifying the payment thereof," this employer obligation having been developed in regulation by the Ministerial Order of December 27, 1994, in whose Article 2.1 it establishes that the salary receipt "shall be signed by the worker upon delivery of the duplicate thereof and payment in legal tender or by check or bank draft, of the amounts resulting from the settlement," but "when the payment is made by bank transfer, the employer shall deliver to the worker the duplicate of the receipt without requesting his signature, which shall be understood to be replaced by the proof of payment issued by the bank."
In the case judged in the aforementioned ruling, the company argues that the duty to deliver the payslip does not necessarily require making it available in paper format, understanding that this can be done in magnetic format, for which purpose it requested its employees an email address where they could receive the keys to access the "employee portal" of the corporate intranet and view, print and download the payslips.
However, the ruling states that the worker's refusal to receive his payslip in electronic format is not contrary to contractual good faith, arguing that the burden borne by the worker for reading and filing a document in paper format is less than the burden of electronic format and the same applies to evidentiary effects, making it lawful for the worker to prefer that format to the electronic one.
Does this mean that it is not legally possible to replace the delivery of payslips on paper with the implementation of a system for making them available or sending them electronically? Of course not.
The aforementioned ruling supports the possibility of replacing paper payslips with electronic payslips (email, intranet, etc.), provided that certain conditions are met to ensure that employees can access their payslips through terminals provided by the company. These terminals allow them to view, download, and print their payslips after entering their personal access code, thus obtaining a payslip in a format similar to the paper version previously provided. In the words of the ruling itself, this is compatible with companies adapting to technological advancements and with the mandate contained in Article 3.1 of the Civil Code, which requires interpreting legal norms in light of the social realities of the time in which they are applied, paying particular attention to their spirit and purpose. In this case, the purpose is to guarantee "proof of the employee's receipt of the amounts paid" and "transparency in the employee's understanding of the different payment and deduction items that make up the final settlement."
Martí Milán Romera
Labor law area
Do you have any questions about this topic?
Our team of expert advisors will help you resolve any issues related to our services.
Contact us now
A Àmbit Assessor, SL has 40 years dedicated to the tax, comptable and labor consultancy of the Pime.
Latest entries from MGI Àmbit
(see all)
Related
