This Monday, September 2, the commercial judge of the Court No. 4 of Seville decided whether the buyer of Marypaz could finally do procurement. But for now, the parties are waiting for the judge’s decision.
Likewise, there was news regarding the ERE negotiation, since the CCOO union met with Marypaz this Monday.
The acquisition of Marypaz
The buyer of Marypaz, as reported by ABC, would be Bella Mode International Tradealso known as PrivateBrandsa Catalan company owned by Xavier Güell Cid. It is one of the stores that offers discounts of up to 80% on brands such as GeoxDolce&Gabbana, Calvin Klein, Tommy Hilfiger or Ralph Lauren.
So, currently, Xavier Güell He was the only one to make an offer for Marypaz. His initial goal was to buy 16 to 20 shoe stores and maintain about 88 jobs, but there was room to expand the proposal.
News in ERE
However, on September 2, the CCOO union met again with Marypaz and there was news in the negotiation of the ERE.
Specifically, the CCOO union noted some irregularities in the application of the ERE and requested that these details be corrected. “In some provinces that have reached an agreement with caccessory by seniorityThis was not included in the payroll. Besides the fact that in 2022 The provincial collective agreement has been updated and this reform has not been implemented. We hope that those irregularities are corrected“, explain union sources.
“Regarding the economic agreement, they have not changed their position. We are still waiting for the judge I have notified the parties your decision regarding the purchase. However, We assume that this decision will be yes.. Likewise, until Wednesday, it will not be known what the buyer will ultimately do regarding three stores which are under consideration for purchase and which are located in Seville, Cadiz and Madrid,” they specify.
The ERE Agreement
A few days ago there was still no agreement between Marypaz and the CCOO union in terms of financial compensation. Thus, union sources indicated to OKDIARIO that “the negotiation period for the Marypaz ERE would end without an agreement.”
The reason is that according to CCOO: “The possibilities of an agreement remain at odds with each other because for the purposes of compensation they do not deviate from the legal minimum compensation.
Thus, in terms of compensation, Marypaz has not moved from its initial approach, which was 20 days per year worked with a minimum of 12 monthly payments, while CCOO was asking 28 days per year with a maximum of 15 monthly payments.
The reason given for opposition is the “the economic situation of the company“We are therefore not deviating from the legal minimum compensation. And we are not going to assume an agreement in these terms,” they specify.
From CCOO, they explain that when the judge’s decision regarding the purchase is known, “they will legally evaluate the final conditions of the ERE to see if they are likely to challenge“.
