[A]t times, a labour judiciary not specialised in cooperative or mutual matters has produced inadequate rulings, without taking into account the spirit and essence of the type of worker cooperative organisation and its specific legal dynamics.
[U]sing criteria and presumptions of labour law that are not directly applicable to solidarity economy organisations, the courts limit themselves to charging the cooperative with the member’s obligation to participate or not in the life of the institution, without analysing that, in this respect, it is the plaintiff member herself who must take care to participate in the life of the solidarity organisation and make the claims that she considers relevant, which in this case has not been the case. Everything that is characteristic of a worker cooperative has always been guaranteed, in respect of which there is no room for presumptions, which can be applied in the case of employers’ organisations, in which the workers do not participate in the decision-making process.
The serious aspect of the recent case law of the Supreme Court of Justice, beyond the specific case, is that these precedents mean that many worker cooperatives are unable to obtain contracts and work for third parties. All this, faced with the possibility of being condemned by rulings that could lead to their disappearance, because they cannot assume serious costs unjustly with inappropriate claims, and even less so if the third parties who hire them are unduly condemned.