Some of the favorable indicators of the labor relationship are the obligatory nature of the benefit, the fixed and periodic remuneration, as well as being inserted in the organization of work of the company and the very personal element of the relationship in the activity carried out.
Judgment delivered by the Supreme Court on 16 November 2017 [RJ 2017, 5543]
The worker signed a collaboration agreement in which he agreed that he would collaborate in the rendering of written translation and/or interpretation services for public or private entities, according to the following fundamentals: the translator would provide his services for the company acting on his own behalf; the translator promised to submit the invoice for the services performed each month due by attaching the corresponding certificates when appropriate. As consideration for the services provided, the translation company committed to pay the amount of said invoice within a period not exceeding 90 days. The agreed fees amounted to 24 euros per hour of intervention.
According to the Supreme Court, the agreement between the worker and the company hired by the Public Administration for interpretation and translation services in the procedures instructed by different judicial bodies is of a labor nature due to meeting the criteria of employment and dependency.
Specifically, the case concerns a worker who renders his translation services to a company hired by the Public Administration. Specifically, when the police, civil guard or a court required translation and interpretation services, they contacted the company, which indicated to the worker the place, day and time at which he had to go to render his services, with his own means.
Once the intervention was over, the worker was issued with a certificate stating the date of the translator’s intervention, the start and end time of the work, the language used, the body that had specified the services and the number of the procedure in which assistance was required.
While it is true that the worker did not have a fixed schedule, this was imposed by the needs of the organizations that requested translation and interpretation services.
Also, the worker decided whether to provide their services or not. However, if he did not attend, there was a risk that he would not be called again.
This activity was carried out by the worker in exchange for a fixed and periodic (monthly) compensation in proportion to the activity provided; specifically, 24 euros per hour worked. To do this, he had to justify the hours he had worked through the monthly presentation of invoices that accompanied the certification of the judicial body in which he had carried out his activity.
In addition, there is no evidence that the employee had any type of business structure but was inserted into the work organization of the company for which he provided translation services.
Therefore, neither the failure to provide full-time services nor the existence of an exclusivity regime distorts the labor nature of the relationship. The fact that the company did not provide material means to the employee does not prevent this qualification of employment because, given the characteristics of the work he carried out –translation and interpretation–, the most important element was the personal element, lacking any relevance the material means.