O rexistro da xornada diaria: comentario sobre unha sentenza do Tribunal Supremo do 23 de marzo de 2017

Abstract

[Resumo] Este comentario faise sobre unha importante sentenza do Tribunal Supremo, ditada no recurso de casación ordinaria n.º 81/2016, que revoga outra da Sala do Social da Audiencia Nacional do 4 de decembro de 2015 sobre Bankia, SA, e en que se mantén que non é obrigatorio establecer un sistema de control horario –e rexistro– da xornada ordinaria, senón que tal obriga se refire en exclusiva ao suposto de se realizaren horas extra. O argumento parte de que o artigo 35.5 do Estatuto dos traballadores, conforme a súa interpretación literal, se refire só ás horas extraordinarias, o que emenda a liña interpretativa implantada nos tribunais inferiores, que antes entendían que si era obrigatorio instaurar un rexistro diario de toda a xornada. Neste artigo analízase a devandita resolución e os efectos que dela se derivan, desde o punto de vista probatorio, para os traballadores que aleguen a realización de horas extra.

[Abstract] This comment is on an important judgement of the Supreme Court, given in the appeal No. 81/2016, coming to revoke another room of the Social of the National Court of date 4th December 2015, about Bankia, SA. This judgement remains that it is not obligatory to establish a system that keeps a record of the number of hours worked during a regular working day. The obligation refers only to the record of so-called perform of overtime. The argument is based on the 35.5 of the Workers’ Statute, which according to its literal interpretation refers exclusively to overtime. This comes to amend the line of interpretation that was implanted in the lower Courts, which used to understand that it was indeed required to establish and keep a record of the working day. In this article I analyse the resolution and the effects that arise from it from an body of evidence point of view, in case of workers claiming for the payments of overtime worked