Teacher performs substitutes for 707 days without ancillary individual remuneration: the Court returns 3,867 euros plus interest

The work of restitution to teachers of the professional remuneration of precarious teachers continues: the sum, equal to 174.50 euros per month, denied to all precarious teachers (as well as the CIA to Ata staff), has been systematically denied by the State, but for some time the judges take care to put things right, at least on this front, compensating many precarious workers already penalized by reduced paychecks because they are deprived of the automatic clicks instead granted to regular colleagues.

In recent months there have been countless judgments that have granted the restitution of 174.50 euros per month, for failure to assign the so-called RPD: the court of Forlì was expressed favorably in February, then that of Modena, then of Catania, in the spring we had the favorable sentence of Paola. And again, in the province of Cosenza, where a teacher has recovered almost 2 thousand euros plus interest than her and another almost 2,900 euros, then in Verona, where the labor judge has granted 1,200 euros for just one year of annual temporary posting.

This time it was the ordinary Court of Florence that did justice, which said yes to the right of a teacher for the “perception of the professional remuneration of teachers, provided for by art. 7 of the CCNI of 31.08.1999, in relation to the service provided under the fixed-term contracts stipulated with the Ministry of Education, University and Research, now the Ministry of Education “between 2014 and 2017, condemning the the same Ministry, reads the sentence, “to the payment of the relative salary differences, based on the days of work actually carried out, quantifiable at the time of filing the appeal, in € 3,867.29 plus legal interest from the individual due dates to the balance. With the victory of expenses and competences of the present judgment, to be distracted in favor of the undersigned attorneys who declare that they have advanced the former and not collected the latter “.

According to Marcello Pacifico, national president of Anief, “these sentences tell us that the right to collect monthly DPOs and CIAs is illegitimate and discriminating: in the last two school years, tens of thousands of substitutes have also been paying for this unjust rule” Covid “. As are the many placed in the role after one or more years of substitutes, who have received many reduced salaries. We invite them to each verify their position, using the online calculator made available free of charge by Anief: in this way they will be able to ascertain whether or not there are the conditions to start appeals to the Court with the patronage of the same union at advantageous economic conditions “.

THE JUDGMENT OF THE ORDINARY COURT OF FLORENCE

The teacher had carried out short and occasional substitutions in the school years 2014/2015, 2015/20016 and 2016/2017, specifically for a total of 707 days (187 in the academic year 2014/2015; 249 in the school year 2015 / 2016 and 271 in the 2016/2017 school year) and “regretted not having received the so-called professional remuneration of teachers (equal to € 164.00 gross monthly until February 2018 and € 174.50 gross monthly from March 2018), paid by the agreed Ministry only to permanent teachers and to those with fixed-term contracts of annual duration ( expiring on August 31 or June 30); criticized the discriminatory nature of this employer conduct, noting that his own work activity during these substitutions had not differed from that carried out by tenured teachers (and those with annual fixed-term contracts), presenting the same charges and the same degree of responsibility and quality “.

The judge, after having assessed “the principle of non-discrimination with respect to workers hired for an indefinite period, in application of clause 4 of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work of 18.3.1999 annexed to Directive 1999/70 / EC” and that the Supreme Court has already had occasion to specify that this emolument “has a fixed and continuous nature and is not connected to particular methods of carrying out the performance of the teaching and educational staff”, and that therefore “fixed-term employees cannot be treated less in favor of permanent workers, unless there are objective reasons (Cass., 1773/2017, Cass., 20015/2018, Cass., 6293/2020, Cass., 6435/2020) “, concluded that” the applicant has the right to the payment of the DPO, like permanent teachers and temporary teachers on vacant positions available for the entire duration of the school year or at the end of teaching activities “.

“Therefore – reads the sentence, issued on 15 September last – the same appellant has the right to the payment of the relative salary differences, in relation to the days of work actually carried out; the exception of prescription promptly raised by the Ministry has no merit (on the operation of the aforementioned prescription also in the present case, see most recently Cass., 10219/2020), as the credits accrued within 5 years from the date of notification of the formal notice of 10.12.2018 in deeds (doc. 8 fasc. ric.). Given the lack of contestation on the quantum (except for the reasoned limitation), the applicant is entitled to the sum of € 3,867.29, the payment of which must be sentenced to the respondent Ministry. The costs of litigation follow the loss and are paid as per the disposition, with distraction in favor of the attorneys of the appellant party declared antistataries “.

Teacher performs substitutes for 707 days without ancillary individual remuneration: the Court returns 3,867 euros plus interest – Orizzonte Scuola Notizie