Labor dynamics are constantly changing and evolving; companies are constantly seeking to improve and adjust their operations to be more efficient and profitable. In this sense, it is possible that substantial changes in working conditions may arise that can affect employees in various ways. One of the changes that can generate controversy is the elimination of the lunchroom in a company. In this article, we will explore the relevant aspects of this modification and how it could affect workers.
Until a few years ago, based on the Decree of June 8, 1938 on canteens for workers of the Ministry of Organization and Union Action and the order that developed it of June 30, some companies were obliged to have a space enabled as a dining room for their workers with all the necessary elements for the development of the same.
Nowadays, there is no legal or regulatory rule in our legal system that requires companies to have a dining room, except in outdoor jobs where there is a distance between the workplace and the place of residence.
The recent Supreme Court ruling of June 23, 2020 determines that company canteens are not mandatory and opens the door to those companies that have them and rethink what to do, because, as stated in this ruling, unless the collective bargaining agreement establishes it or there is an agreement with the workers’ representatives, companies are not obliged to do so.
However, a distinction must be made as to whether we are dealing with a newly created company or a company that has already been created.
In the first case, for newly created companies, if the applicable collective bargaining agreement does not establish it, the company would not be obliged to offer a canteen to its employees.
However, in the second case, in those companies that have had a canteen for their employees for a long time, it would have become part of the contractual relationship between the company and the personnel of the work center by virtue of the so-called “most beneficial condition”.
The doctrine on the “most beneficial condition, establishes that:
for the existence of a more beneficial condition to be sustained, it is necessary that it has been acquired and enjoyed by virtue of the consolidation of the benefit claimed, by virtue of an unequivocal will to grant it ( judgments of September 16, 1992, December 20, 1993, February 21, 1994, May 31, 1995 and July 8, 1996), so that the advantage granted has been incorporated into the contractual relationship “by virtue of an act of will constituting a concession or recognition of a right” (judgments of February 21, 1994, May 31, 1995 and July 8, 1996) and, finally, “the will of the employer to grant its employees an advantage or social benefit that exceeds those established in the legal or conventional sources of regulation of the contractual employment relationship” (judgments of January 25, May 31 and July 8, 1996)” is proven.
If this is the case, in order to eliminate the canteen, we would need to resort to the procedure for substantial modification of working conditions under Article 41 of the Workers’ Statute, which requires a consultation period, otherwise the unilateral decision to eliminate the canteen could be declared unlawful.
The elimination of the canteen in a company means that employees will no longer be able to access food services within the facilities during their working day. This implies that workers will have to look for alternatives to satisfy their food needs, such as bringing their own food from home or looking for nearby establishments to eat.
Changes for employees.
- More responsibility: Workers will be responsible for preparing and bringing their own food from home, which implies a change in their daily routine. This can increase personal workload and generate additional stress for those who are not used to doing it.
Editing with Elementor
Loading
Employee rights.
Editing with Elementor
Loading
- Right to collective bargaining: If there is a union or union representation in the company, employees have the right to participate in collective bargaining to discuss proposed changes in working conditions. This implies that employees can express their concerns and seek alternative solutions in the event that the canteen is eliminated.
- Right to occupational health and safety: Companies have the responsibility to provide a safe and healthy work environment for their employees. In the case of the elimination of the canteen, employers must ensure that workers have access to adequate options to meet their dietary needs during the workday.
- Right to adequate compensation: In some cases, employees may be entitled to receive adequate compensation if the elimination of the canteen represents a significant economic loss or an adverse change in their working conditions. This right may vary depending on applicable labor laws and collective bargaining agreements.
Alternatives and compensation.
Faced with the elimination of the canteen, companies may consider implementing alternatives or compensations to mitigate the negative effects on workers. Some possible solutions could be:Changes for employees.More responsibility: Workers will be responsible for preparing and bringing their own food from home, which implies a change in their daily routine. This can increase personal workload and generate additional stress for those who are not used to doing it.
Right to collective bargaining: If there is a union or union representation in the company, employees have the right to participate in collective bargaining to discuss proposed changes in working conditions. This implies that employees can express their concerns and seek alternative solutions in the event that the canteen is eliminated.
Right to occupational health and safety: Companies have the responsibility to provide a safe and healthy work environment for their employees. In the case of the elimination of the canteen, employers must ensure that workers have access to adequate options to meet their dietary needs during the workday.
Right to adequate compensation: In some cases, employees may be entitled to receive adequate compensation if the elimination of the canteen represents a significant economic loss or an adverse change in their working conditions. This right may vary depending on applicable labor laws and collective bargaining agreements.
Alternatives and compensation.Faced with the elimination of the canteen, companies may consider implementing alternatives or compensations to mitigate the negative effects on workers. Some possible solutions could be:
- Negociar descuentos o convenios con restaurantes cercanos para ofrecer opciones de comida a precios más accesibles.
- Proporcionar beneficios adicionales, como vales de comida o tarjetas de comida, para ayudar a cubrir parte de los gastos alimentarios de los empleados.
