TECHNICAL NOTE: Revolution in the determination of false self-employed by the Labor Inspection (repeal of art. 148 d) LRJS).
The recent Law 3/2023, of February 28th , on Employment (BOE March 1st , 2023), establishes in its DF 9º the following:
Ninth final provision. Amendment of Law 36/2011, of October 10, 2011, regulating the Social Jurisdiction.
Section d) of Article 148 of Law 36/2011, of October 10, 2011, regulating the Social Jurisdiction, is deleted..
Revolution in the determination of false freelancers. What has changed.
The Ninth Final Provision of the Employment Law has amended Law 36/2011, of October 10, regulating the Social Jurisdiction, by deleting section d) of Article 148 of Law 36/2011, of October 10, regulating the Social Jurisdiction.
It should be recalled that this provision, included in the article on ex officio proceedings, stipulated that such proceedings could be initiated as a result:
“d) Communications from the labor authority when any infraction or settlement report issuedby the Labor and Social Security Inspection, related to Social Security matters excluded from the knowledge of the social order in letter f) of Article 3, has been challenged by the responsible party based on allegations and evidence that, in the opinion of the labor authority, may distort the labor nature of the legal relationship subject to the inspection action.
The labor authority shall attach a copy of the administrative file to the ex officio application referred to in the preceding paragraph. The admission of the claim will result in the suspension of the administrative file.“
This section, now repealed, therefore established two fundamental issues:
– On the one hand, the obligation of the labor authority (TGSS) to initiate the claim ex officio when the allegations in the infraction report or liquidation of the company “may distort the labor nature of the legal relationship that is the object of the inspection”.
– And, on the other hand, the fact that the admission of the claim “will produce the suspension of the administrative file“.
Practical consequences of change
The legislative amendment means that, from now on, the labor inspection reports declaring the employment status of a “false self-employed” will be directly enforceable when they become final (without having to, ex officio, sue the TGSS before the social jurisdiction for the judge to analyze the nature of the relationship and, if necessary, declare the employment status).
This means that the Labor Inspectorate will be able, by itself, to declare a “false self-employed person” as an employee, settle the back social security contributions and, in addition, once the administrative procedure (the act) becomes final, the employee’s contract will also be an employment contract going forward, i.e., the contributions will be settled for that employee from that moment onwards (without the procedure being paralyzed while the social jurisdiction decides, as was the case up to now).
This is a very relevant change in three ways:
– On the one hand, because the Inspectorate may, without resorting to the labor courts, declare the labor law to be in force;
– On the other hand, because the acts will become enforceable as soon as they become final;
– And, thirdly, because it will not be the labor courts that will now decide on the labor law declared by the ITSS, in the event that the company objects, but rather the company will have to challenge the act before the Contentious-Administrative Court.
Why it has changed:
The change has been made by virtue of the introduction of Amendment No. 383. amendment No. 383 to the Employment Bill, presented by the Confederal Group of Unidas Podemos – En Comú Podem – Galicia en Común, and the Socialist Group, which requested the suppression of Article 148 d) of the Law Regulating the Social Jurisdiction.
In the opinion of these parliamentary groups, the fact that the ex officio lawsuit suspended the administrative file meant that the acts were frozen until there was a ruling, preventing the administrative acts from their usual enforceable nature. This meant that the company did not have to pay the back contributions until there was a ruling, and allowed the company to continue operating with the self-employed (declared by the labor inspectorate) until there was a ruling from the social court.
According to the same parliamentary groups, this paralyzation of the procedure was very protective for the companies, and was showing deficiencies in the face of the macro trials of companies, in which the production system was carried out with what the administration calls “false self-employed“.
According to these parliamentary groups, the companies “abused” this guarantee system to continue working with self-employed workers in spite of the Administration’s decisions, challenging the acts and having to wait case by case, to be able to transform the contracts into labor contracts, until there was a final judgment. The fact that the execution of the act was postponed until there was a final judgment provided a clear incentive for the companies to delay the proceedings and challenge the decision. This was also detrimental to the “false self-employed” who could not see their rights restored as employees until a final judgment was handed down.
Conclusions
Following the repeal of art. 148 d) of the LRJS, the conversion into employment of those declared by the administration to be “false self-employed” will be determined directly by the ITSS in the liquidation reports.
And if the company opposes this act, it may challenge it before the Contentious-Administrative Courts, but this will not paralyze the process of execution of the inspection act.
Thus, from the moment that the act becomes administratively final, the workers will see their relationship with the company as employment and will cease to be “false self-employed“, without having to wait for a final judgment to be handed down.