Since the end of the 90s, jurisprudence had been admitting that the contract for a specific work or service can adjust its duration to that of the contract
The Social Room of the Supreme court has modified its doctrine and rejects in a sentence the temporary limitation of employment contracts in response to the commercial contracts of the companies.
Since the end of the 90s, jurisprudence had been admitting that the contract for a specific work or service can adjust its duration to that of the contract. This criterion is abandoned by the sentence, of which the magistrate has been rapporteur Maria Lourdes Arastey Sah Sn, and which has been adopted unanimously in the plenary session of the Chamber on December 15.
Thus, the high court indicates that those who offer services to third parties carry out their essential activity through contracting with them and, therefore, it is illogical to hold that the bulk of that activity has the exceptional character to which the contract for work or service must attend. The ruling declares that it is difficult to continue maintaining that the company can support the essence of its activity in a workforce subject to the regime of indeterminacy of labor relations.
The magistrates add that the automation of this temporary hiring, by the mere mechanism of the type of activity, can lead to situations of jeopardizing the guarantees sought by European Union Law.
Finally, they recall that the legislator has designed other instruments to meet the variability of the company’s needs and make decisions about the size of the workforce.