The Supreme Court (TS) has determined that interim contracts cannot be made to cover the absence of workers who they are on vacation, since there is no “extraordinary” circumstance that justifies them.
In a recent ruling, the Social room ensures that the company “is fully aware” that the workforce has, by law, their right to enjoy their corresponding rest period, so resorting to interims on these specific occasions does not comply with current regulations.
The case analyzed by the magistrates stems from the claim of a security guard who signed “several fixed-term employment contracts, almost all of them temporarily” during the holidays of various company employees.
The last one was signed on September 16, 2017; few days later, the worker was appointed union delegate, and on the 30th of that same month, the company informed him of the termination of his contract at the expiration of the agreed time.
As explained by the Supreme Court, the litigation focuses on determining whether the hiring of the security guard as an interim to replace another during his vacation “supposes a fraudulent hiring”, which, if confirmed, would lead to unfair dismissal.
The magistrates recall that an interim contract is one that has a certain duration and that is carried out to replace a worker with the right to reserve a job, but provided there is an “extraordinary circumstance”.
In this sense, they emphasize that “nothing extraordinary is the enjoyment of vacation periods, or other breaks to which they are entitled all the workers of the company.
It is therefore “a completely foreseeable circumstance”, so that the temporary coverage of these places with interim substitution is not in accordance with the Law.
The court thus considers the resource of the security guard and declares his dismissal unfair as there is no cause to protect him.