‘Court goes against Social Security and says companies don't have to pay TSU during layoffs. There are more cases in progress’ (with Ana Margarida Henriques)

‘This decision ‘responded to doubts raised about the obligation to make such contributions during the suspension of contracts or periods of reduction in the normal working period, contradicting the Social Security's view that they were due’, says the law firm SRS Legal, in a recent publication in which it discusses the ruling.

[...]

Speaking to Observador, Ana Margarida Henriques, a Lawyer in SRS Legal's Employment and Social Security department, also stressed that the ruling does not represent case law, but believes that it could ‘give strength’ to the arguments invoked by other companies that decide to challenge in court the payment of social security contributions owed to them during the layoff. ‘The truth is that it's an important precedent,’ she said. According to the lawyer, the employer has five years from the date of the undue payment to claim the unduly paid social security contributions.

[...]

But if the issue has never been consensual, why is it only coming up now? Ana Margarida Henriques, from SRS Legal, admits that the considerable increase in companies on layoff during the pandemic, and even in recent months, may have raised doubts among more employers about a rule in the law that was never really clear. ‘The truth is that the use of the layoff mechanism before the pandemic crisis was not as expressive as it is today,’ and companies that have lived through the crisis with the simplified layoff have had a different “contributory experience” that is “strange” compared to the classic layoff.’