The lawyers of the Administration of Justice have been on an indefinite strike since January 24 to demand a salary increase that places their salary at 85% of what the judges charge.
They assure that their protest has already forced the suspension of more than 270,000 trials and there are more than 350,000 lawsuits pending distribution and one billion euros blocked in the consignment accounts of the courts.
EL PAÍS has spoken with the two parties in conflict, the Secretary of State for Justice, Tontxu Rodríguez, and the strike committee spokesman, Xoán Xosé Yáñez.
No one sees a solution close.
The lawyers (the former court clerks) demand to adjust their salary to the new responsibilities they acquired in 2009, when the judicial offices were approved.
The ministry alleges that his salary has already risen by 14,
5% and it is proposed to update the public faith model and remove functions before accepting new salary increases.
“You have to assess whether they actually have too many functions and you have to remove some of them,” warns the Secretary of State.
The lawyers, who have called a demonstration in Madrid for this Thursday, accuse Justice of breaching an agreed commitment.
Tontxu Rodríguez, Secretary of State for Justice
"There are functions of lawyers that perhaps other bodies can do"
Ask.
Are you close to resolving the conflict?
Answer.
I would like it to be resolved today.
That today they suspend this indefinite strike.
It is in his hand.
Q.
The lawyers complain that Justice does not summon them to continue the negotiation, is it going to do it?
R.
You have to start at the beginning.
An indefinite strike was called for the breach of an agreement that they say was closed in April last year.
The lawyers of the Administration of Justice charge between 39,000 and 61,000 euros per year.
The minimum interprofessional salary in Spain is 14,000 euros, to give a reference.
They received a salary increase of 5.26% that they already have on their payroll, 2,430 euros per year, plus the 9.5% increase for all officials.
We must add it: more than a 14.5% increase.
It is true that in 2009 their functions were increased, because we were still rethinking that increase and we must assess whether they actually have too many functions and some must be removed.
None of the associations that have come have claimed anything to improve the public service of justice,
everything has been salary improvements.
Of the 11 commitments that we acquired with them in April, 10 have been fulfilled or are being processed. And there is one, the down payment clause, that cannot be fulfilled.
On February 28 we made an offer with 8 or 9 points and we are waiting for them to answer us.
Parallel salary improvements were proposed to groups 4 and 5 [those who earn the least], which affects 1,906 lawyers of the 4,403 who are in Spain and would mean an increase of between 1.64% and 13.16% of salary The answer to that was no, like everything else.
They insist on the down payment clause and ask all lawyers for a linear increase of 1,100 euros per month.
That would imply some 61 million euros, that is, that the salary increase for lawyers would be higher than what is dedicated to free justice, which is almost 50 million.
Q.
Are they going to be quoted?
A.
We are waiting for an answer.
They have not responded and until they do respond...
Q.
You have indicated that the equalization with the judges that they ask for would be 1,100 euros per month and they allege that this shows how far apart the two salaries are.
A.
Yes, of course.
But there are judges and there are lawyers.
Is not the same.
They make a different opposition and their responsibilities are very different.
A judge issues sentences or sends people to jail, for example.
The lawyer is the director of the judicial office
Q.
You have said that since 2009 you have assumed new functions and that perhaps you have to rethink it.
Is Justice considering withdrawing functions instead of increasing their salary to repay them for those functions they acquired?
A.
We are studying it.
There are functions that perhaps other bodies can do.
Q.
Some judicial operators have suggested as a result of this conflict that the current model of public faith should be reviewed, which may be obsolete in the digital world.
Do they think about it?
A.
Yes.
Q.
To do it imminently?
R.
Things must be done calmly and temperately.
Not urgently.
Q.
They place the start of the conflict in April 2022, when there was an alleged agreement between both parties.
Justice sent a note to the media entitled: "The Government will promote the linking of the remuneration of the LAJS to those of the judicial career."
That is the commitment that the lawyers consider unfulfilled.
Why it is not done?
A.
It was not signed by either party.
In that text there were many more issues that have been fulfilled.
The only thing that has been done is the down payment clause, which they know from the outset is impossible.
P.
But Justice titled the note of that meeting there.
R.
We studied the situation and we saw that it led us to 61 million euros, which was impossible.
Because in addition, they are not judges, and there are certain functions that are already carried out by managers and not by secretaries, which is why I said that the functions that were given to them in 2009 should still be reviewed.
Q.
Do you maintain that it is a privileged strike?
A.
Yes, without a doubt.
Few citizens charge those amounts.
Q.
Since the strike began and you began to negotiate, are there other sectors of the justice system that have knocked on the door of the ministry to demand improvements?
R.
Those who have contacted have been the unions, who claim that they are the ones who sit at the negotiating tables.
It is logical, the Constitution says who has the union representation and the lawyers do not have a union, they are associations.
But it is also possible to think that if I ask judges for a down payment clause of 85%, then it may be the judges who ask for an increase;
and below, the same.
The managers or the rest of the officials of the Administration of Justice will also want an increase.
It is logical to think so.
Q.
Does Justice assume that it will have to enable a reinforcement plan to recover the acts suspended due to the strike?
R.
A reinforcement plan will have to be made and see how the suspended trials recover, but it is flatly false that he will be forced to work in August as has been rumored.
It's a hoax
Q.
The lawyers hold the ministry responsible for the consequences of the strike: suspensions, delays, etc.
Does Justice feel responsible?
R.
No. Responsible will be the one who makes the strike, the one who has prevented hearings from being held, harming all parties.
That is why I say that we continue to have our hand outstretched, lawyers are very important within the Administration of Justice.
But it is in your power to put an end to this situation, and that is to call off the strike today.
Xoán Xosé Yáñez, spokesman for the judicial secretaries, in the Cidade da Xustiza de Vigo, this Wednesday.ÓSCAR CORRAL
Xoán Xosé Yáñez, spokesman for the strike committee of the lawyers of the Administration of Justice:
"It is very dangerous to question such old institutions on which the rule of law is based"
Ask.
What do the lawyers require?
Answer.
Last year a series of agreements were reached that put an end to a historical dispute between the lawyers and we ask that they be complied with.
Since 2009 we have been demanding that the new justice model that gave us more functions should be reflected in our remuneration.
Q.
What is that claim specific to?
R.
Our basic claim is the salary adequacy for these functions.
It could be done in many ways, but the ministry opted for the down payment clause, establishing an equalization between the remuneration of the judges and ours.
We are not closed in band that it is done only in this way, we are willing to explore alternatives.
But the ministry asks us to renounce that without giving us anything in return.
P.
Justicia assures that yours is a privileged strike.
R.
They seem unfortunate words to me.
We are workers with some labor claims that seem adjusted to us.
If heterogeneous things are compared, we can be called privileged, but the same could be said of the doctors' strikes.
They are honest claims.
Q.
The ministry maintains that your claims are exclusively retributive.
Do you claim anything else?
R.
We have many pending issues.
We demand an organic regulation, changes in payroll, in the professional career, substitutions.
Justice always remains in commitments, but they have been standing still for two years.
In any case, there is no shame in claiming economic issues, a strike is also for that.
Q.
The Government alleges that they are one of the bodies that has had the highest salary increase in this legislature and that if they attended to their claim it would mean a linear increase of 1,100 euros per month.
Do you agree with that calculation?
R.
I don't know if it's 1,100 euros or not.
That figure has been taken by them.
I think it is exaggerated, but if so it shows that we are even worse paid and further away from other legal professionals than we thought.
Q.
The ministry has offered to raise the salaries of the lower-paid lawyers, but you have rejected that proposal, why?
R.
This measure is very short compared to the similar measure that was proposed to us in April.
It represents 30% of what we were told then.
Q.
Do you accept anything other than that?
R.
We are in the negotiation phase and we have never refused to see the issues one by one.
But honestly.
The meetings have not been done as they should.
They tell us to give up what we want out of hand and come up with other written proposals.
That cannot be because we started from what we had agreed to and they are the ones who have dropped the hook, and that forces them to start the negotiating path.
We will accept a fair and reasonable settlement.
Q.
What would you say to the citizens or other legal operators who have been seeing their trials suspended for seven weeks?
R.
We deeply regret the damage that is being caused to the citizen, we wanted to have resolved it much sooner, but the ministry has taken three weeks to convene us for the first time.
Then another week to summon us again and now we don't know when he is going to summon us again.
It is difficult to solve it if there is no clear will on both sides.
Q.
Some judges, lawyers or officials criticize that they are suspending trials that they were not going to attend anyway because they are recorded
R.
The presence of the lawyers is necessary even if they are not physically present.
Technology is a means to be able to practice judicial public faith, which is a guarantee with more than 1,000 years.
It is very dangerous to question such old institutions on which the rule of law is based.
Q.
Do you agree that there are anachronistic protocols in your functions?
A.
Perhaps, but these issues have never been discussed when we were not on strike.
I see a debate interested in harming the fact that workers go on strike.
I experienced a similar case in Galicia three years ago.
Two and a half months without a single trial because the aid officials went on strike.
I considered that it would have been an act of scabbing to have replaced him myself in recording the trials or opening the door and calling citizens to testify, which are things we have done in situations where the assistant was not there.
However, there was no controversy and the right to strike of these officials was respected.
With us there is.
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits
Keep reading
I'm already a subscriber