The Supreme Court upholds compensation for dismissal without notice at agricultural cooperative
Cooperative condemned for failing to comply with the notice of termination
The Supreme Court establishes a precedent regarding the removal of cooperative members
The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of a cooperative that will have to pay 177,103 euros to the Arrocera del Pirineo, S. Coop., for the damages resulting from their voluntary resignation without respecting the statutory notice period. The ruling states that failure to meet this deadline will result in a penalty. generates liability for damages when it causes proven economic damages.
The obligation to give prior notice in cooperatives
The relationship between the two entities was governed by the statutes of the Pyrenees Rice Cooperative, whose Article 10 c) imposed on its members the obligation to participate in cooperative activities and deliver 100% of their harvest. The defendant cooperative notified its withdrawal one day before the board meeting that was to approve the annual sales plan, despite having previously communicated that it would deliver more than six million kilos of rice. 38 % of total production.
This behavior prevented the rice mill from adjusting its economic and sales planning, causing it direct harm. According to the Court, the three months' notice Its purpose is precisely to allow the cooperative to adopt organizational and financial measures to avoid internal disruptions.
Legal basis for the conviction
The Supreme Court relies on the Articles 2.2 and 22.b) of the Law on Cooperatives of Aragon, which allow for the statutory establishment of a notice period and the recognition of the right to compensation when this period is not respected. The Civil Chamber emphasizes that voluntary resignation does not imply immediate termination of employment, but rather opens a transitional period to determine its economic and legal effects.
Furthermore, the Court rejects the notion that the compensation constitutes a contribution to fixed costs, emphasizing that it is a compensation for breach of contract. The amount of 177,103 euros was calculated according to the expert report and the accounts approved by the general assembly of the Rice Mill.
Partner's standing to challenge agreements
The ruling also clarifies that the partner who reports their withdrawal retains legitimacy to challenge agreements that directly affect them, such as those relating to the classification of their withdrawal or the reimbursement of contributions. In this way, the Court corrects the criterion of the Provincial Court of Navarre, which had denied this possibility, considering the status of member to have been extinguished.