He believes that their permanent attention to victims is “inherent” in the “personalized” role they perform
MADRID, 9 Nov. (EUROPA PRESS) –
The Supreme Court (TS) has established that the fact that the agents of the National Police dedicated to the care of victims of gender violence have permanent availability on their mobile phones is “inherent” in the “personalized” function they perform , for which he has rejected that they are entitled to a salary bonus.
The case arose from a claim made by several agents of the National Police Corps who work in the Family and Women’s Care Unit (UFAM) in Gran Canaria because they considered that they should be recognized a salary bonus for “overtime in working time”, something that the UFAM rejected, in a decision later endorsed in court by the Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands and, now, by the TS.
The Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court explains in its ruling, to which Europa Press has had access, that “being stationed in said unit entails –among other things- the duty to carry the mobile phone on and be in an area with coverage 24 hours a day, every day except during vacation periods”.
“The reason for this duty is that each official stationed at UFAM is permanently assigned to several victims of violence, on the assumption that care is more effective if each victim always communicates with the same official,” he says.
In this regard, it specifies that “the duty to be available by telephone at all times only implies responding to the victim’s questions and needs and, if necessary, notifying the corresponding police services.” “It does not imply any duty of movement, much less escort or physical protection,” he clarifies.
The agents underlined in their resources “the especially painful nature of the duty to always be accessible by mobile phone” because “it limits their freedom and their private life to a greater extent than do those jobs that entail an extension of the working day or a duty to attend physically to a certain place if called”, two cases in which this complementary remuneration is recognized.
However, the State Attorney’s Office argued that “the role performed by UFAM officials is peculiar, because it is based on the requirement that each victim can always go to the same person,” emphasizing that “the statistical average of calls received is three per week, with a usual duration of six or seven minutes”, for which reason he rejects any comparison with the other two assumptions mentioned.
The legal services of the State also recalled that “the officials of the Higher Police Corps who provide their services at the UFAM do so on a completely voluntary basis.” “Far from being a forced destination, it is necessary to pass certain tests to access it,” they stressed, also adding that this “higher level” compared to other destinations already entails “a remunerative specialty.”
The Supreme Court states that “it does not share the reproaches directed by the appellants to the contested sentence, nor does it consider that the appealed administrative acts are afflicted with any illegality.”
The magistrates understand that “the permanent telephone availability of UFAM officials is a duty inherent to the very function entrusted to them, a function in which the personal element is essential.”
“No one denies that the relationship of each victim with the UFAM must be channeled through a specific official, so that the function can be characterized as ‘personalized’ and, therefore, requires availability at all times,” they establish.
To this they tie, aligning themselves with the State Advocacy, that “UFAM is a destination to which the officials of the Superior Police Corps always access voluntarily and that entails certain advantages.”
For this reason, the TS indicates that “it can only be concluded that the burden of being accessible by telephone at any time is something known and previously accepted by those who exercise that function”.
