El principio de condición más beneficiosa a la luz de la última Jurisprudencia

The objective of this work is to analyse the figure of the principle of the most beneficial condition, both from a theoretical and practical perspective; bearing in mind, to these last effects, the numerous Jurisprudence of the Supreme Court existing since 2004.It should be remembered here that the figure of the most beneficial condition, although it has a long tradition in the labour framework, does not have an express legal expression beyond the provisions of Article 3.1.c) of the TRET and the reference made therein to the autonomy of the will of the parties to the labour contract as a source of work conditions that improve or do not contravene the provisions of legal and regulatory rules and collective agreements. It is also an institution that is clearly consolidated in the jurisprudence and fully in force in the practice of labour relations.From the perspective of its origin, the most beneficial condition may be included in the employment contract itself - a very infrequent situation - or derive from the entrepreneurial will, which may be verbal, tacit or even deduced from the concurrent circumstances in each case (a habitual situation in practice).Obviously, the fact that it is not expressly collected will make it difficult to prove not only its existence but also its scope. In addition, if the most beneficial condition derives from the unilateral will of the employer, the acceptance, express or tacit, on the part of the recipient worker is required.We must not forget, on the other hand, that the objective of this figure is to improve the working conditions laid down in the applicable rules and collective agreement and, as stated in the case law, it may affect very diverse matters - mainly of economic content or linked to working time - except for trade union matters and the prevention of occupational risks. It is indifferent, on the other hand, as we pointed out in this work, the relevance of the improvement to the effects of being able to speak of a more beneficial condition.A special debate arises from the fact that the most beneficial condition can be addressed not only to a single worker, but also to a group of workers or to all the workers in the company, as well as from the fact that it can be reserved only for older workers. It should also be borne in mind that it may be recognised for workers who are no longer active in the company, such as early retirees or pensioners, and that it is also recognised in the context of company succession.On the other hand, the proof of the existence of an unequivocal entrepreneurial will in favour of creating the most beneficial condition, without the element of “permanence” in time being a sufficient datum for these purposes, is also highlighted in this work, which continues to raise doubts -and creating a certain legal insecurity- the proof of the existence of an unequivocal entrepreneurial will in favour of creating the most beneficial condition, without the element of “permanence” in time being a sufficient datum for these purposes.As the jurisprudence reminds us, it will be necessary to assess the specific circumstances present in each case in order to determine whether that will has really existed, and in the face of similar realities, the judicial response is not always the same.Likewise, it should not be forgotten that the most beneficial condition does not arise either from the provisions of a statutory collective agreement -by the application of the principle of modernity or normative succession- or from an extra-statutory agreement -because of its temporary nature, which excludes an unequivocal entrepreneurial will. However, as discussed in this paper, the thesis prepared by the courts on the contractualisation of working conditions in the cases provided for in Article 86.3 of the TRET when there is no higher collective agreement, introduces a new debate within the framework of the most beneficial condition.There are also interesting doubts as to whether an administration or a public sector body could recognise more beneficial conditions for employees, especially in view of the strict application of the principle of legality and the principle of competition in this area. We must not forget that labour law also applies in the public sector, but neither does the logic underlying a more beneficial condition respond more to the private sector.As analyzed in this paper, although a more beneficial condition, once established, is incorporated into the employment contract and consolidated, is not permanent or perpetual; but for its modification or suppression it is necessary to follow certain paths. It cannot, therefore, be unilaterally suppressed by the employer, as is often the case in practice. It is therefore necessary to resort to the agreement between the parties -without any type of interference-, to the compensation and absorption mechanism -whose requirements have been clearly made more flexible by the case law in recent years-, or to the procedure of substantial modification of working conditions (the most common way in the case of the most beneficial conditions of a collective nature and not particularly complicated to apply in practice after the last labour reforms).In short, it should be borne in mind that, as defended in this work, the figure of the most beneficial condition, although “classic”, is clearly consolidated in the jurisprudence, its profiles are also delimited -with the difficulty, already pointed out, of verifying an unequivocal entrepreneurial will-, and it continues to be in force. In other words, its role may be limited by the very restriction to which article 3 of the TRET subjects the autonomy of the will, but it is not an institution in decline or that should be discarded or diluted in our model of labour relations.