Understanding Employment Contracts: Legal Classifications and Implications
A) Definition and Subject of Employment Contract
Course A: Since 1 February 2000, Louis, who is a lawyer, has been serving as a legal adviser on behalf of the company IURISNET, Ltd. The parties called the lease of services. Initially, Luis advised and performed legal reports as the director of the legal department of IURISNET, SA, for which he attended the same one day a week, during regular office hours, and received a fixed monthly amount plus VAT, which was included in fees. He also attended meetings of the Governing Council and many others necessary for the development of his tasks. On 16 March 2001, the Governing Council agreed that Luis would provide his duties as legal adviser to the Board and the Manager, no longer being attached to the corporate legal area. From this moment, Louis came three days a week to the company, from 10:00 to 15:00, but sometimes changed his daily care routine. During the time he remained in the offices of the company, he served private clients (because he had established an exclusive basis or full-time). He enjoyed a month of vacation and also took other additional rest periods. He used to work on the company computer. He received a regular monetary amount that increased by twelve monthly installments annually. On 15 July 2008, Louis received a letter from the company notifying the termination of the contract without giving rise to any compensation beyond the settlement of outstanding fees for the periods that had already expired. Louis, unhappy with the measure, contested it. A conciliation was held before the competent administrative department, which ended without agreement, and Luís’ dismissal claim was brought before the Social Order of the Court.
The course is based on the STS of 3 May 2007 (RJ 2005, 5786). In this case, we discuss the legal classification of the services provided by counsel for a company. Specifically, whether the link is civil in nature (contract for services) or, by contrast, has a common labor character. Depending on the solution to that question, the order has jurisdiction to prosecute the conflict arising from the termination of the contract between the lawyer and the company.
1. How would you classify the services provided by IURISNET to Louis in SA? Is the link he has with the company civil in nature (contract for services) or, by contrast, does it have a common labor character?
The solution given to the case depends mainly on the occurrence of labor notes provided for in art. 1.1 of ET. However, it should be taken into consideration, first, that the contracting company’s legal services is a corporation lawyer and, secondly, that after a certain date (16.3.2001), Luis came to play roles as adviser to the Governing Council and Legal and Commercial Manager. These two factors also force consideration of the following provisions:
“The Law 39/1975 of 31 October on the appointment of legal advisors to the court administrator of specific companies (According to Article 1: 1. On the commercial companies, there is a mandatory basis for a legal advisor to the individual or collegiate body holding the administration in certain cases, and Article 3 provides that: the relationship between the Legal Adviser and the Company will be purely professional, without prejudice to cases in which this relationship is established by contract expressly a).
-The Royal Decree 2288/1977 of 5 August, regulating the advice of counsel to commercial companies referred to Law 39/1975 of 31 October.
The legal classification of the activity that an attorney performs is traditionally a complex and controversial matter. This is due, in part, to the fact that the law can be exercised through a variety of legal bonds, without thereby undermining the true nature of the benefit. Currently, the practice of law can be developed in Spain through various formulas, all traced back to two categories:
A) Own: – As an individual office holder.
– In a free group with other lawyers, providing a collective release in any of the formulas allowed in law, including commercial companies, or through other forms of collaboration such as multi-office.
B) Employed: – In a labor law scheme (employment contract), through a joint employment relationship or a special working relationship, senior management (These are workers who have the status of lawyers and, while exercising senior management, are subject to a special employment relationship regulated by Royal Decree 1382/1985, 1 August, which regulates the employment of special nature of senior management personnel (BOE no. 192, August 12, 1985; Corr Err., BOE no. 211, 3 September 1985). The SSTS, Appeal for violation of law, Social, 4 June 1984 (RJ 1984, 3274). (Cdo. 2), 2 December 1986 (RJ 1986, 7253). (FJ 2) and 17 February 1987 (RJ 1987, 873). (FJ 3) recognized the condition of high office, subject to the features and typical elements of the employment relationship, especially top management, a worker who serves as Counsel of a company and is appointed to exercise functions of senior management. Alleged are workers who provide legal advice in a company and while exercising as chairman, director, or secretary within the management body. They have come complaints to the courts for declaring the nature of employment services under the special employment relationship at the top. The courts have noted that the consultancy work does not imply the exercise of power itself inherent in the ownership of the business, so that those workers are not included within the scope of the special employment relationship at the top. In this sense, vid., STCT of 23 November 1989 (RTCT 1989, 2481) (FJ 1)) or Advocacy.
– In a non-work system, particularly through professional collaboration or contractual arrangements of civil nature (service lease, lease deed, mandate, or other forms of collaboration) or commercial (contract agency contract and mediation).
It has long been admitted the possibility that the practice takes place in working arrangements, through a contract of employment:
– Directly between the lawyer and the client. The clearest example is found in the figure of the lawyers. Today, a large number of companies within the organization integrate their own legal advice. In these cases, the employment relationship is of a common or ordinary character.
– Between a lawyer and an office holder, individual or collective, with which, in turn, clients contract for legal services. In this case, the employment relationship between the lawyer and the owner of the firm is formally classified as special (First Additional Provision Act 22/2005 of 18 November).
During the seventies (the last century), both the Central Labor Court and the Supreme Court admitted that providing services under a contract of employment if there were the notes of labor art.1.1 and, in particular, dependence, sufficient for it to be given that the lawyer was an organic part of the circle and discipline on behalf of an employer who provided legal services. In these cases, the link is delimited labor rather than the alienation, the inclusion of workers in the field of management and organization of the employer, i.e., the dependency note. This position arose precisely to the thread where it was supposed to determine the legal nature of the relationship between a lawyer and client, as is the case with the figure of the corporate lawyer and, more specifically, whether it was a work contract or a contract for services. Only a working relationship binds the parties if in the same concur, jointly and simultaneously, its four essential requirements (art. 1.1 ET): voluntariness, personality, alienation [of the fruits (retribution) and risks] and dependency; just missing one of them to provide services that fall outside the Labor Law (In this sense, the Valencian Community STSJ of 7 December 1995 (AS 1995, 4530) where FJ 2 states that their work with the Bar open office, which has been providing legal services and advocacy for a bank, which has received a fixed amount each month for his services and regular (outside), does not make it possible to set such a working relationship as lacking the condition of dependency, as does its work without assigned office on the premises of the bank, nor obliging him to schedule periodic assists … did not receive orders and instructions, but made inquiries and advised him many times to the office where the bank was again without indicating how they should raise the defense of the contentious issues entrusted to him). That is, if all these requirements are met, the link will be an employment contract unless a law otherwise valid, which is why courts insist that although the services provided by a lawyer are not material, in principle, work nature, because it is a profession of so-called liberals, it does not, by itself, imply the possibility of inclusion in the orbit of the Labor Law, if the notes of number of working concur Art. 1.1 of ET. For the purposes of determining the legal nature of the relationship, the budget of dependence or subordination of providing the service to the person for whom it was running charges a paramount importance in the case of provision of services of professions, such as advocacy. In the case of lawyers, the line of separation between the employment contract and other related legal concepts, especially the hiring of civil service, is often blurred and vague, notably when customers are businesses, so it will necessarily be carefully assessed the circumstances of the case.
In our case, the parties called the lease contract as legal aid services. However, the legal nature of a contract is not determined by the letter of the document which is formalized by the nomen iuris attributed to it; it is irrelevant to the qualification that the parties allow the contract because the legal nature of the contractual relationship is determined by the set of rights and obligations that are agreed and the reality of the content expressed by the acts made in implementation, which override the nomen iuris employed by the contractors (REINOSO says Ortega, G.: “Collaboration between lawyers” (BIB 2005, 923), Actualidad Civil, Volume I, 2005, pg. 907, that the relationship between lawyers or between lawyers and law firms, civil or labor will be depending on their legal status determined by the actual content of concerted benefits and the concurrence of the budgets to determine the type of contract law, not the nomen iuris which the parties have been granted, although it can be said that in principle the provision of lawyers working nature has not given their status profession. But even when the parties agree that the relationship is civil or commercial matters, the relationship will work if any units outside, check to be made case-so, depending on both the circumstances in each case). The Court insists that the determination of employment status or the relationship that binds the parties is not something to be freely available to them but that is a qualification that must come from the actual content of the concerted benefits and the concurrence of the requirements to legally define the contractual, dependence, understood as a situation of a worker subject, even in a flexible and not rigid and severe, to an organic field and leading the company, and alienation, about the scheme remuneration, are essential elements that differentiate the employment of other types of contract.
But let’s review again the requirements of the employment contract and put them in connection with the case that concerns us here.
A. Personality: The employment contract is concluded with personal intuition, so that the worker must be an individual, not be empowered to designate a substitute freely without the approval of the employer. When the client contracts directly with the attorney for legal services under the notes of labor art. 1.1 of ET, we have a common employment relationship and not special, where the customer work and employer match. As already noted, the clearest example is illustrated by the figure of the lawyer firm (The employer who hires the services of the Advocate is anyone who needs legal advice and/or defense at trial, except in the case of an employment Temporary hires a lawyer to make it available to a user enterprise), that some people have identified as “advocate for a single client.” In this case, the legal connection between the lawyer (advocatus) and the employer takes a significant personal (personal intuition) and trust (fiducia). All this, notwithstanding that some authors have felt that the practice of law directly by the client indicates a lack of labor.
B. Voluntariness: As in any relationship, also in linking a lawyer with the firm that needs its services, the consent of the parties is inherent in the employment contract (art. 1261 CC). Likewise, the willingness of the parties is to be revealed without violence, intimidation, fraud, mistake in the will, mental reservation, or impediments error.
C. Dependency: The reliance on the provision of qualified subordination is not synonymous with rigorous and intense at the employer’s governing circle, as it is a more flexible one; it being sufficient that the lawyer is within the scope of organization and management of another company. The note has to be tempered dependence on legal and professional relations, given their complexity in today’s job market, so that the classical notion of “dependency work” is replaced by “productive integration within an organization outside.” The Doctrine and the courts say with unanimity that when a lawyer employed provides the dividing line between leasing special services or professional collaboration and the work contract must be placed in the unit, i.e., the insertion or not organismic level and discipline of the employer.
a. Subject to the governing circle and organismic the employer. Signs of dependence: The Bar is a profession of so-called intellectual and scientific independence defines his exercise and is present in the framework of a joint working relationship. The consideration of the legal profession as a free and independent profession (art. 1.1 EGAE) does not prevent its exercise in working arrangements. The work of an intellectual nature whose realization requires a higher qualification, as with the practice of law, developed by the professional, largely according to tolerate their knowledge without undue interference. Therefore, the dependence on the supply of labor appears somewhat weak or diffuse scientific autonomy to a greater or lesser extent, accompanying the lawyer in his performance, but this does not mean you cannot operate sufficiently to mediate one employment contract. In other words, law is no less a profession by the fact that their work is employed. In any case, should differentiate the technical autonomy in the exercise of the profession, for which affirms the independence of lawyers, from the legal employment agency, referring to the fulfillment of contractual obligations, which could well be subject to orders and instructions of the employer without compromising their independence. The lawyer, in fulfilling their duties, acts with freedom and independence, without other limitations than those imposed by law and by ethical and professional standards (art. 33.2 EGAE) and those under the power of management and organization of the company that has contracted.
The position of the majority and the Courts Doctrine note that in the practice of law subject to the power of management and organization of the entrepreneur can be identified from a series of events classical indices such as:
– “The submission to a work schedule and time settings. Nothing, however, started the qualification of the working relationship as the appreciation of some flexible hours, as this is proper and customary in high-skilled workers.
– “The existence of a licensing regime, breaks, and holidays.
– “The place of work. The provision of services at the premises of the company whose ownership is not for the worker is a fact that denotes dependence on the provision of services. Moreover, lack of dependence denotes that a lawyer passes up the business in their own professional office, business, or office without working in the company and attending the same units only when required to address an issue or required by the nature of work assigned. In short, it indicates a lack of working days that the ownership of the premises in which appropriate provision is developed on the holder and not the beneficiary of it. Notwithstanding the foregoing, has admitted the existence of labor services of a lawyer who works in her home, that is, the lawyer as a homeworker (art. 13 ET) and even when it does in their own professional office open to the public which, incidentally, denotes the absence of exclusivity in the provision without, therefore, refused to link labor. Ultimately, the provision of services by a lawyer in local and headquarters of the company that hired him is a sign of labor, but the converse is not sufficient evidence alone, not to classify the relationship work.
– The use of the material provided by the company (computer) without the worker meeting any money for their use.
Besides the traditional indicators that are seen in our case (time, schedules, job in the business units, and use of their material), the unit also can be reflected in other aspects of work performance, such as the existence within the organization chart, a legal department that workers, not only part as a lawyer but also is the head or director.
The TS maintains as well that it is not enough to offset the dependency note, clearly recognized from the occurrence of the events described above, the fact that:
– “The worker attends to customers in the premises of the Company and within working hours that she was assigned as well may be due either to tolerance on the part of the company, or simply a faulty performance of their duties by the employee.
– The provision of services is not on a full-time basis. The full commitment is merely an indication of work, and must not deny the existence of an employment relationship if the lawyer provides services to other customers, because from the life of the Workers’ Statute, the provision of services for one employer is only possible (due) by agreement of compensation. The lack of dedicated has ruled alone as an argument exclusionary character of the relationship work, because exclusivity is not a defining element of an employment contract, knowing, however, the regime of multiple jobs and multiple jobs and not constitute but a written agreement to be concluded to be understood explicitly incorporated into the employment contract (Article 21.3 ET) without prejudice to the prohibition of unfair competition with the employer.
b. Subject to disciplinary entrepreneur circle: The dependency on the provision of services involves not only the submission of counsel to the circle of leadership and organizational entrepreneur, but also the disciplinary power of it. The employment relationship is unique in that the lawyer is not only subject to the disciplinary power of the employer but also to the judicial authority (art. 442.1 LOPJ) and college discipline, the Dean and the Board of Governors of the Bar for (ss. 17.4, 27.2, and 80.2 EGAE).
D. Outside: A worker who is serving liberal professional, the note of alienation is closely related to the form of the pay. Typically, the reward system is one that has marked the difference between leasing services and employment. Suggests the existence of an employment relationship that obeys pay a fixed parameter, unlike the hiring of services where the pay is commonly perceived in terms of cases in which the practitioner has spoken, that is, by professional act performed. A fixed and regular payment, as happens in the case commented on, is a clear sign of alienation, of the presence of an employment contract, which is strengthened when further tested the payment of bonuses. The absence of bonuses is a sign of lack of labor. The remuneration received by the lawyer, as an employed person is, is known as the salary, payment received against a lawyer who did not attend the notes of work, which has the nature of fees. The document through which we receive the payment of wages is called receipt certifying the payment of wages or salary, compared to the minutes, which is the term used to identify the document outlining the amount of fees. Finally, it is equally essential to the employment contract, in addition to the alienation of the fruits of labor, the alienation of the risks, so that the employer assumes the obligation to pay to the worker a fixed periodic amount, provided that in its amount influence the outcome of legal affairs of his speech, that is, apart from the possibility of gain or loss on the outcome of his work, which is attributed only to the employer.
In summary:
The relationship between a lawyer and the company he serves as legal adviser (first as director of the Law Department and then the Board of Directors and Managing Director) is working if he attends the notes to Article 1.1 of ET, in which case the social order is the competent court to prosecute international trade dispute parties for the purpose of developing it.
To unravel the true nature of the link advised the Court in these cases go to the ‘proof’ of assumptions (indicatory method) or the rules of interpretation of contracts. The interpretation of the contract cannot just look at the mere letter of the document that appears embodied.
I did not start the qualification of the working relationship as the fact that counsel for the company:
– “Not providing services on an exclusive basis, the profession also playing on their own.
– “Sometimes individuals serve customers on the premises of the company, it can obey perfectly well tolerated by the company, or simply a faulty performance of the duties of the employee.
2. What would be the order that has jurisdiction to prosecute the conflict arising from the termination of the contract between Louis and IURISNET, SA?:
The relationship between the lawyer and the firm constitutes a genuine contract of employment, so the power to prosecute the conflict between two parties for the purpose of developing this relationship is attributed to the social court order.
Course B: Ramon is an electrician and works for a company called ASISA Acoustic Insulation, SA. The company has arranged with the company BUILDER, SA, which is dedicated primarily to making reforms in commercial premises, the sound insulation of a nightclub, which is owned by DANCING, SA, which will open in Logroño in the autumn. Ramon has been hired (in the form of work or service contract) for the duration of the tasks of soundproofing to the nightclub. These tasks began on 20/06/2008 and ended on 31-08-2008. After completing his contract, for completing the task of soundproofing, the company ASISA, SA Ramón owes an amount of 350 euros in extra payments in arrears. While the works have lasted, Dancing Company, Inc. decided to hire 3 security guards from SECURITY Company, Ltd., to guard that no robbery occurred on the premises.
1. Determine the relationship, if any, between: Assisi, SA, BUILDER, SA, and DANCING, SA:
A contractual relationship exists between Assisi, SA (Contractor) and BUILDER, SA (Client). As played in the beginning, including the guarantees of art. 42 and, as both companies have contracted to carry out works or services relating to the activity itself (implementation of reforms in commercial premises – installation of insulation in buildings). While the relationship between DANCING, SA and BUILDER, SA is also a contractual relationship, but unlike the previous one does not enjoy the guarantees provided by the TE, since both firms have hired their services because of the activity itself. There is no legal relationship between Assisi, SA and DANCING, SA, saving the fact that the first activity performed on the premises of the second.
2. What guarantees could be used to see Ramon met the amounts owed?:
Art. ET 42.2 provides that the principal employer (BUILDER, SA) during the year following the termination of their duties, is severally liable for the obligations of a contracted wage by contractors and subcontractors with their employees …. This means that Ramon may claim the amount that is owed (because it is a wage debt) from both ASISA, SA and BUILDER, SA. That is, both companies can be held liable in court proceedings.
3. In the event that Ramon had been dismissed prior to the completion of the work, and had not received appropriate compensation? What company would be responsible for payment?:
They play the same guarantees as in the previous case because the debt occurred during the course of the contract, and still remains a wage debt. And several liability referred to by art. 42.2 ET extends even the year after completion to the commission in relation to obligations of a contracted wage when there was a relationship between the companies because of a contract or subcontract.
4. In case that the three security guards are also in a situation of unpaid wages, for not having received wages for the month of June, July, and August could you use the same guarantee that Ramon has been used?:
In this case, the guarantees of art. 42 do not apply because that might be applicable to the relationship between the companies has to be due to recruitment occurring because of the activity itself, understood as inherent in achieving those activities to the main company. The task of monitoring the reforms of the club is an ancillary activity to remodel, so it did not apply the guarantees of art. 42 to these workers.
B) Joint Working Relationship and Specialties
Course A: John has provided services for the company TEXTEST, SA in 2004. In January 2005, he was appointed Administrator of solidarity, along with two partners, causing high in the Special Regime for Self-Employed, acquired over this year and early 2006 a series of shares, so that in February of that last year accounted for 33% of capital, assigning it a fixed compensation for their services. His responsibilities as administrator of solidarity within the company were to comply with and enforce the agreements of the General Meetings of members, appoint and dismiss employees, bring all kinds of authorities, buy and sell all kinds of movable and immovable formalize labor contracts and similar documents deliver and collect money, make any kind of performance before the Treasury, to grant and revoke powers.
1. Before what we’re kind of working relationship? A common employment or employment relationship of a special character?:
This assumption is based on a Judgment of 26 December 2007 Supreme Court (RJ \ 2008 \ 1777). This is a case which attends social management and the employment relationship. The problem is to determine when it is accepted that competition and absorbed when the corporate relationship to the performance of work, which is necessary to examine within each associative if the supply of labor and social contribution is made or if it occurred within a concurrent exchange relationship with the associative link.
According to FJ 2 of the STS 26/12/2007: The exclusion of the working relationship partners who perform other tasks than their own partner status can be determined by the absence of the note of alienation when the partner holds the corporate share ownership of a determinant, so that the provision of work she can do is done as a contribution to society, share this Board noted from 50% stake in the capital. But it can also come excluded under art. 1.3 c) ET, for lack of dependence on the job, when dealing with people that make up the highest body of management of the company…, Being a typical feature of these people who are part of the governing body of the company to represent and supreme direction of the same, without their relationship born of a labor contract but a nomination or appointment by the highest organ of government so that their relationship has a commercial character. For another hand, continuing the sentence, it is true that case law supports that these people can have both a working relationship with your company, but it can only be for work that could be called common or ordinary, not when it comes to play time as its Chief Executive and senior management jobs (Manager, Director General, etc.). since in such cases the double bond has the sole purpose of the supreme management and administration of the company, i.e., the charge administrator or counselor understands itself the functions of senior management. The STS 22-12-994 (RJ 1994, 10221), in interpreting art. 1.3.c) of the Statute of Workers, notes that “One must bear in mind that the activities of management, operation, administration, and representation of society are typical and specific activities of the management bodies of commercial companies, .. . and so in the context of the corporation, the organs of this class, …, have precisely the function or mission essential and specific implementation of those activities, which are mainly resided in such bodies, is their particular expertise and own. So it is wrong and contrary to the true essence of the management bodies of society to understand that they are only allowed to carry out purely consultative functions or simple advice or guidance, then, on the contrary, they compete directly and executive action, the exercise of management, leadership, and representation of the company. Therefore, all these actions involve “the completion of tasks inherent” to the status of directors of the company, and fully embedded in the ‘tenure as director or member of the administrative undertakings in the legal form of society’, and hence is within the ambit of that Article 1.3, c) Workers’ Statute. ” If we assume, the question that arises when functions are made compatible CEO and senior, case law has established that in cases of simultaneous performance of activities of the Board of Directors of the Company, and senior management or enterprise management, which determines the classification of the relationship as a commercial or employment is not the content of the functions but the nature of the link, so if there is a relationship of organic integration in the field of social administration, whose powers are exercised directly or through internal delegation, the relationship is not working, but a commercial, which implies that as a rule only in cases of labor relations in the dependency not qualified senior management, but as common, would allow the simultaneous performance of management positions of the Company and a relationship to employment.
In the case of John, he holds the title of the third capital of the TEXTEST, SA, an administrator in solidarity with the other two partners and receives a fixed monthly remuneration for work as a Manager. Therefore we can conclude (as does the above) that we are not facing an employment relationship (common or special).
Scenario B: Ana has been working for and under the dependence of the Embassy of Peru from the 1st of March 1998 with the rank of cook, with a salary of 1838.66 per month, with assessment of extra payments. Ana served in the embassy premises, particularly in the Ambassador’s residence house, owned by the Peruvian State. Providing such services for the current ambassador, and previously, without interruption, for the previous ambassadors. Services, which extended both to the families of those needs as food to the attention of official acts, performed at home. In addition, Ana was residing at the premises of the Embassy, along with other comrades, without paying rent and without payment of supplies. Their salaries were paid by the manager of the Embassy, from the Peruvian State. On 28 June 2008, she was dismissed by a letter signed by the current Ambassador in which he communicated his decision to dispense with her services as of August 30, 2008, under RD 1424/1985 of 1 August, on special relationship domestic employees. Also, she was made available to him, compensation equivalent to 7 days of salary per year of service.
Was Ana a relative or domestic employee or was she in fact an ordinary worker?:
This assumption is based on the STS of 21 October 2008 (RJ 2008 \ 5662).
In this course, we try to determine the legal nature of the relationship binding the applicant with the Embassy of Brazil and particularly if it is an ordinary or special employment for domestic workers, from where the acceptance of abandonment as a ground for excusing the termination of that employment in the event that should qualify as special, or its classification as a severance payment in case of joint employment relationship. FJ 2 as determined by the sentence cited above: the situation of the worker … cannot be classified as “employees of the family home” … as it does not meet the conditions under which Spanish law allows qualifying such a relationship as special. The first reason for supporting … not limited to domestic work, or work in the service of the family home which is a basic requirement for this qualification, but to reconcile the nature of that work along with other work or services … which “the attention of meals and events official” with what was no longer met the first requirement of art. 1.4 of this Royal Decree as requiring that the work will be reflected in household tasks (of “domus” house), but even if this were so, Spanish law, based on the fact that the specialty of this relationship is a reason for being in the strictly personal, family, and intimate the same, eliminates any input rating of this nature when the relationship is between individuals, which is reflected in his art. 2.1.a) to explicitly exclude this special regulation “concerted relations by legal persons, even if its object is the provision of services or household chores, the latter being subject to common labor standards”, as part of the basis that a legal entity owns a family home susceptible to hire this kind of service which requires the art. 1.2 of Royal Decree when calls of this nature regarding the “concluding the owner (the family home), as an employer and the person who … provides services in the area of the family home. He continues the sentence: … not only does not perform chores or only the service of a “family home”, but who served for several ambassadors and was hired not by them but by the Embassy that was what you were paid their salaries, specialty … not acceptable, so with all of its vitality normal working relationship actually existed between the employee and the Brazilian state employee as his true ….
Course C: Pedro’s club soccer regional preference category, and trains regularly at the club for two hours daily and three or four days a week, 20 to 22.30 hours. Similarly, the parties involved in the dispute according to the timetable Club competitions and federative felt under the name “fee” an amount of 230-media-euro per month (sometimes 210 and another 250 euros). On 29 August 2008, the Club informed Peter that the coach no longer had him, both parties signing a document in which the Club “agreed to carry out the assignment of a team player who played for Group VII Third Division with payment of compensation of 3000 euros” and that if there were no possibility of transfer, the player agreed to train with the staff of the Club and “playing in the subsidiary … agreed to receive emoluments” in the meeting in June with the manager.
Is Peter a professional sport or simply a fan?:
This assumption is based on the Case of 2 April 2009 of the Supreme Court (RJ 2009 \ 1848).
As the sentence, the subject of debate in this procedure is solely to the qualification and professional or amateur, that the onus is unsupported by written contractual activity takes place in a club footballer of the Regional Preferential, training regularly in the same premises for two hours daily and in three or four days a week, 20 to 22.30 hours, participating in the Club disputing parties under federal schedule of competitions and receiving under the heading of ‘fees’ a quantity-media-230 euros a month [sometimes 210 and 250]. As identified by the Court in FJ 3: The Art. 2.1.d) ET considered employment of the special nature of “professional athletes” and the scope of it is stated in Art. 1.2 of RD 1006/1985, for which professional athletes are “those who, under an established relationship regular basis, dedicate themselves voluntarily to sport as an employee within the scope of organization and management of a club or organization Sports in exchange for a fee. 2 .- It is noteworthy in this definition … the law is not necessary that the athlete is in possession of the relevant Federal license, required by the provisions sports. What is new entirely reasonable, since the existence of professional sports labor contract and the submission to the discipline to specific labor regulations, not dependent on a license that operates in a different regulatory domain and whose absence cannot undermine the nature of the contract. In the words of the Court itself, the only peculiarity that the special relationship of professional athletes has the face of common employment is the specificity of the service, because, other than indicated, requires the presence of all budgets that characterize the link regular work. Indeed, the definition contained in art. 1.2 RD 1006/1985 shows that the substantive requirements of the employment contract sports are: a) .- First, the dedication to ‘sport’, which is excluded from the special relationship to those still serving for sporting bodies, they do with “sports” [cleaning staff, administrative services, surveillance, medical …]; b) .- Second voluntarism, which is note passed from the specialist field of relation to sporting activities regulations imposed in some contexts [sport education, prisons, military…], C) .- Thirdly, the habitual or regular basis, which is exclusive of the casual or marginal sports, and even the ‘isolated for a businessman or organizer of public entertainment “performed by a professional sportsman [Art. 1.4, RD 1006/1985], d) .- Fourth, the alienation of service and dependence, understood as identical to those that pertain to the common working relationship [ ‘account and within the scope of organization and direction “of who assumes the role of employer], so that its demand eliminates the scope of the special relationship to sports activities performed autonomously. And e) .- Finally, pay [ ‘in exchange for a fee, “says the rule], which is a consequence of the bilateral relationship and the respective benefits onerous; requirement that precisely distinguishes the professional athlete versus amateur. In the event that we do not think the audience even questionable for much of those demands, such as the dedication to ‘sport’, voluntariness, alienation, and dependence [of course not deny the letter of challenge presented by the defendant Soccer Club]. The problem centers on the last requirement between those above, the remuneration, whose clarification makes the standard itself-art. 1.2 – the term reasonable to exclude from their scope introduced over all logic, to whom the remaining notes exist for practicing the sport in the area of a club, but “received from him just compensation for the costs of their sport. That is, according to FJ 4: Ultimately, the question leads back to the not always easy to differentiate between the practice of sport on a professional basis and status of “amateur”, meaning the latter conducted by those who “develop sporting activity only as a hobby or physical value, i.e., non-profit or compensation even when framed in a club and subject to the discipline of the same ”
Once the presence of the notes of working days required by art. 1.2 of Royal Decree, we are left to conclude that: … the case under discussion is a football player who received “by the voluntary provision of sports services in management of the entity in question-a fixed monthly amount [230 euros] in respect of which not even get to qualify as “compensation costs” but as “fees” [receipts] and the emoluments [transfer paper]. Thus, not only has the Club not shown that they were a “compensation expense” [or even what was intended], but even come to recognize that we are witnessing a clear-although limited, a financial consideration for the provision of services; consideration that epithet ‘fixed’, because there is justification for little fluctuation [a few months 210 euros and 250], before us, precisely aims to exclude-the aforementioned regularity. And … the assignment-and frustrated-agreed to another computer on the Third Division for a season, agreeing a “compensation” of $ 3,000, and the expectation that it be impossible former player would play with the subsidiary ‘ receive emoluments’ meeting agreed in advance with the Manager [not stated the amount of such ’emoluments’] are really enlightening of the legal nature which holds the controversial relationship, because these forecasts are totally unrelated to conventional claimed amateur status and place us loudly on the strict framework of repo regulating art. 11 of RD 1006/1985, which are unimaginable in the amateur sport, as it is done “only as a hobby or physical value, i.e., non-profit or compensation.
Assumption D: Since 2006, Alberto Manuel lives with at home, doing the housework, food, and accompanying him in his daily life. For these services, he does not receive any remuneration. Alberto and Manuel had the promise of letting him in will all his property in exchange for the obligation to look after him while he lived at home. On 30th September 2008, the Labor Inspectorate showed up at the house of Manuel to compile a report declaring the existence of an employment relationship between domestic service and Manuel Alberto. Given that statement, Manuel argued that in reality the relationship he had with Alberto was a maintenance contract.
Do you have a working relationship with Alberto Manuel? If so, what kind?:
This assumption is based on the decision of 19 June 2006 from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla y León, Valladolid (AS \ 2006 \ 2051).
As determined by the sentence, the food contract referred to Article 1791 Civil Code during life is a legal transaction whereby one party, which is the maintenance debtor, undertakes to provide housing, support, and assistance of all types to a person during his life, which is the food or food creditor in exchange for the transfer of capital of any kind on property or rights. In this case, there seems to have been a capital transfer in exchange for the services provided to Manuel Alberto. The only thing that seems to indicate is that the will executed by establishing as a legatee Manuel Alberto, consisting of the legacy in a house owned by Manuel also subject to the condition that “the care while living at home”, being clear that the transmission of capital which consists in housing but will not occur since the death of the deceased. Therefore, until September 2008, all that is true is that Albert has been doing the housework, food, and accompanying Alberto, which means he is doing on behalf of the latter the duties of the employment relationship Employee of the family home (Article 1 of Royal Decree 1.424/85 of 1 August).