The social order as guarantor of compliance with risk prevention (and reparation): vis atractiva, post-pandemic incessant conflictivity

Regarding the Ruling of the Supreme Court 50/2022, 19 January, and the Ruling of the High Court of Justice of the Canary Islands/Las Palmas of 20 January 2022 (rec. 1016/2021)

Abstract

With regard to the jurisdiction of the labour courts for breaches of prevention and the type of action to be brought, the Supreme Court has no qualms about considering the collective dispute procedure with invocation of fundamental rights to be correct when it is precisely such breaches that are at issue. Similarly, the civil liability action arising from accidents at work caused by negligence, even if caused by the negligence of a third party, continues to determine the jurisdiction of the labour courts. It is also clear that the labour courts are competent to hear both possible breaches of occupational risk prevention regulations and actions for compensation, even when this is done within the framework of a special procedure for the protection of fundamental rights, and this in the case of civil servants and probably also in the case of military personnel. The attractive force of the social order to hear matters of preventive compliance facilitates and encourages its exercise, but in no way guarantees the success or effectiveness of prevention or simply of reparation.