Facts
X. SA is a company active in the field of aircraft cleaning. It has concluded two collective bargaining agreements (CBA) with the Swiss Public Services Union (SSP): the CBA for monthly-paid personnel and the CBA for auxiliary personnel.
[A.] was hired by X. SA as an auxiliary cleaner. Although she has worked regularly for about 30 hours per week for several years, she has always been remunerated according to the CBA for auxiliary personnel.
[A.] filed a payment action against X. SA, claiming the difference between the salary received and the salary calculated in accordance with the CBA for monthly-paid personnel, on the grounds that she met the conditions for the application of this agreement.
Considerations
The Federal Tribunal upheld A.'s appeal and referred the case back to the cantonal court for a new decision.
According to case law, an equal treatment clause in a company collective bargaining agreement is legally analyzed as a third-party beneficiary clause in favor of non-unionized workers. When the intention of the parties to the agreement is to grant a direct right to the non-unionized worker, the latter can take direct action against the employer to enforce the collective bargaining agreement.
In the present case, the interpretation of the equal treatment clause in the CBA for monthly-paid personnel shows that the parties intended to grant the same rights to unionized…