BBVA will have to modify its working day registration system and eliminate from the computer tool the requirement for the subsequent authorization of the superior manager so that the hour self-declared by the worker is recorded as actual work. This has been established in a recent ruling by the Social Chamber of the National High Court in which they partially agree with the CGT union that denounced the invalidity of the system. Likewise, the court orders the bank to include in the monthly reports that it sends to the legal representatives of the workers the necessary identification data to be able to control compliance with labor regulations.
The ruling (the text of which can be consulted here) rejects, on the other hand, the union’s other requests: to have information on each of the modifications of the notes in the system and that the worker’s breaks and their duration can be manually recorded.
According to the ruling, BBVA has implemented a day registration system in which the employee writes down the start and end time. The application makes an automatic assignment and, when it returns an excess of hours, the worker can enter “personal reasons” or “work reasons” and justify, where appropriate, the extension.
In the collective conflict, to which the rest of the union organizations joined, CGT denounces a possible under-registration of employees’ overtime. As indicated in his brief, in the month of November 2021, BBVA workers remained in the workplace in excess of their hours for a total of 263,875 hours, of which 4,362 had been requested as overtime, that is, only 1.65%. According to the union, the system, denounced before the Labor Inspection, is not “objective or reliable because it does not allow you to record the breaks that occur in the day, only the beginning and end and by default the hours that exceed the daily workday. are charged to the personal hours of the worker.
For his part, the BBVA lawyer pointed out that the model implemented in the bank was the result of a collective agreement ad hoc validated by the majority of union representation. Specifically, he defended that overtime should be authorized a posteriori and added that only 3% of the extensions of the day had been denied.
The court recalls that in 2019 it already endorsed that to extend the working day beyond what was agreed with the workers, they need authorization from the company. However, he argues, it is one thing that overtime should always be agreed, and another that a model such as the one that has been established in the banking sector, which is based on mutual trust, “be it the company that reserves the right to authorize one type of registration or another”. This is without prejudice to the employee’s liability for falsifying the records. Said authorization, he points out, is not covered by the agreement or the company agreement. “Suspending in a model like the present one that a certain registry must be authorized by the company deprives it of the necessary credibility”, he underlines. Therefore, it fails, the company must eliminate said requirement “so that the self-declared hour is the one that actually appears in the registry as actual work.”