What happens if the company forgets to register a worker in Social Security?

A company had the first seven years of work of an employee without signing up for Social Security.

Since 1979, an employee of the Official College of Architects of Granada had been working as a library archivist. In 2015, he applied for early retirement, which was denied by the National Social Security Institute (INSS), for not meeting the legally required days. A fact that led him to complain to Justice and, finally, the Supreme Court has recognized the shared obligation of the company and the INSS to pay the benefit requested by the woman.

Why was the petition not approved? Because the worker was not discharged at the beginning of the employment relationship with the Granada College of Architects, between June 1979 and May 1987, that is, she had a lack of seven years in the Social Security contribution. As the Court ruling states, it did not have the 10,950 days legally required for early retirement, but 10,222 days. Two sentences of 2012 and 2013, formulated as a result of the employee’s dismissal processes, did recognize their seniority in the company since 1979. Given the refusal to enjoy the desired retirement, the worker filed a lawsuit before a court in Granada and, subsequently , the litigation reached the Superior Court of Justice (TSJ) of Granada, which considered “co-responsible for the pension to the INSS and the company, the latter in proportion to the contributions that had to be made and did not enter,” according to the Supreme Court.

The Court has influenced the application of the “principle of proportionality in corporate responsibility in the payment of benefits”. Eva Díez-Ordás, counsel of the labor department of Garrigues, notes that “corporate responsibility must be proportional to the impact that the contribution defect has had on the benefit analyzed.”

The Supreme Court recalls that the principle of proportionality must be applied “both in cases of temporary contribution overdrafts, and those that bring cause of a lower than the due contribution,” emphasizes the lawyer. “The ruling reminds employers that they can be responsible for the payment of future benefits that are recognized to their workers not only for their lack of affiliation and registration, but also for making contributions below those established by law, “concludes Díez-Ordás.