Facts
The case concerns a dispute between the Central Parity Professional Commission for Tile Layers (appellant) and A. AG (respondent) over the violation of provisions of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) for the tile laying trade. The appellant had sued A. AG for non-compliance with a wage increase clause in the CBA and demanded a contractual penalty.
The lower instances had partially upheld the claim, but qualified the wage increase clause as an inadmissible "effectiveness guarantee clause". As a result, the appellant filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court concluded that the wage increase clause in the CBA constitutes an admissible "limited effectiveness clause" and not an inadmissible "effectiveness guarantee clause".
A limited effectiveness clause provides that a wage increase stipulated in the CBA is to be granted on the basis of the wages previously paid effectively. The effective wage shall be increased to the extent of the increase in the minimum wages. However, the contracting parties may subsequently amend the employment contract and reduce the wage down to the new minimum wage.
In contrast, the effectiveness guarantee clause aims to secure the increase of the…