Post by nijhumnishita033 on Jan 10, 2024 6:27:47 GMT -5
The Social Chamber of the Supreme Court has declared that the hiring of a worker as an interim worker to replace another employee who is enjoying his vacation represents a fraudulent hiring and the termination of his contract would constitute an unfair dismissal. There is nothing extraordinary about the enjoyment of vacation periods or other breaks to which all company workers are entitled. The ruling, dated January 19, 2022 , highlights that the fact that regular workers exercise their rights to rest and vacation is a “ fully foreseeable circumstance ” for the company.
We put in context The actor, a security guard, has provided his services for the defendant, a private security company, under various fixed-term employment contracts, almost all of them temporary , and in which performance was stated as the cause of the contract. of the security guard position during the vacation period of various staff workers. "Both the Phone Number Data Court and the Tribunal did not appreciate the existence of fraud of law." (Photo: Seguritecnia) In September 2017, the company notified the worker of the termination of the last contract signed due to the expiration of the agreed time . Despite this, interpreting that the hiring carried out by the company had been fraudulent and that the termination of his contract constituted an unfair dismissal , the worker decided to present his case in court. On the other hand, both the Social Court No.
2 of Bilbao and the Social Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of the Basque Country issued rulings rejecting the claims made by the worker's representation. Specifically, both did not appreciate the existence of fraud in the law as they were not true temporary interim contracts to cover the replacement of vacation periods. Unification of doctrine Not in accordance with the above, the worker's representation filed an appeal for the unification of doctrine regarding the figure of the interim contract ex art. 15.1 c) of the Workers' Statute in cases of vacation substitution and the consequences derived from its use in a dismissal procedure in which the termination of a temporary contract is challenged, proposing as a contrast ruling the STSJ of Castilla-La Mancha 1592/2010, of November 12 .
We put in context The actor, a security guard, has provided his services for the defendant, a private security company, under various fixed-term employment contracts, almost all of them temporary , and in which performance was stated as the cause of the contract. of the security guard position during the vacation period of various staff workers. "Both the Phone Number Data Court and the Tribunal did not appreciate the existence of fraud of law." (Photo: Seguritecnia) In September 2017, the company notified the worker of the termination of the last contract signed due to the expiration of the agreed time . Despite this, interpreting that the hiring carried out by the company had been fraudulent and that the termination of his contract constituted an unfair dismissal , the worker decided to present his case in court. On the other hand, both the Social Court No.
2 of Bilbao and the Social Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of the Basque Country issued rulings rejecting the claims made by the worker's representation. Specifically, both did not appreciate the existence of fraud in the law as they were not true temporary interim contracts to cover the replacement of vacation periods. Unification of doctrine Not in accordance with the above, the worker's representation filed an appeal for the unification of doctrine regarding the figure of the interim contract ex art. 15.1 c) of the Workers' Statute in cases of vacation substitution and the consequences derived from its use in a dismissal procedure in which the termination of a temporary contract is challenged, proposing as a contrast ruling the STSJ of Castilla-La Mancha 1592/2010, of November 12 .