Leasing and its Labor Considerations

Both the plaintiff and the defendant appealed the judgment that had considered that the dismissal ordered by the defendant lacked justification and had declared the admissibility of legal compensations. The parties mainly questioned the detail and the amount of salary to be considered for the calculation of the compensation.

The Court began its analysis stating that, even though the concept of salary is that which results from the law, which refers to any remuneration that the employee must receive as a result of the employment contract, this does not prevent the law itself from establishing certain exceptions or, in any case, that some concept or percentage included in this remuneration may not be considered for the purposes of calculating the compensation for seniority (provided that it does not involve the denaturing of the compensation purpose that the institute is supposed to comply with).

That is why the Court understands, in its majority vote, that, although the provision of a vehicle to an employee under the terms of a “leasing” –that is, a financial rent that allows for the use and enjoyment of the vehicle through the payment of a monthly fee with a purchase option- can be remunerative, any possible benefit that the employee receives from the subsequent sale of the vehicle exceeds the concept of “monthly, normal and usual”. Consequently, it cannot be considered within the calculation basis of the compensation for dismissal.

Furthermore, the Court noted that, even though the plaintiff failed to prove that the work-related trips were recreational activity for private purposes, the truth is that these trips were neither monthly, normal or usual; so they should not be included within the calculation basis either.

Moreover, regarding the provision of the cellphone and the laptop to the plaintiff, the Court understood that these are tools related to the development of his work activity, which was that of a senior manager in charge of the sales. That is why the lack of a possible authorization for its use for personal purposes, its specific use for such purposes or the lack of strict control over its mode of use cannot alter in any way its functional nature to the tasks, since the lack of control does not cease to be a benefit or a deference –lacking remunerative significance- for a senior employee, who is exempt from continuous and possibly invasive control, which would not sit comfortably with his hierarchy at work. Therefore, both tools (cellphone and laptop) also lack remunerative nature.

However, Dr. Cañal, representing the minority, understood that the use of the vehicle for which the employee paid a rent did constitute a remuneration, especially taking into account that the company took care of most of the vehicle expenses, which, clearly demonstrated a patrimonial benefit for the plaintiff that ended up having a remunerative nature.

Regarding the laptop and the cellphone, Dr. Cañal understood that they also had a remunerative nature, since the plaintiff, due to his hierarchy and his social position derived from his customs and income, had both tools necessarily incorporated into his lifestyle and had such elements at his disposal without any limitation and permanently, even when he left them at work. The provision of these tools by the company, consequently, implied a patrimonial advantage that should be considered as part of the salary.

This is an interesting ruling since it provides that, in compliance with certain guidelines, the provision of certain benefits do not have a remunerative nature, or at least they should not be included in the calculation basis of the compensation for dismissal.